Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

STANDING ORDERS.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, during the present Session—

(a) Standing Orders 250 and 266, relating to the giving of notices and deposit of documents in the Committee and Private Bill Office, shall have effect as if for the words 'five of the clock,' where they occur in each of the said Orders, there were substituted the words 'three of the clock ';
(b) a petition for a Private Bill, required by Standing Order 38 to be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office on or before the 27th day of November, shall be deemed to have been so deposited if deposited in the said Office on the twenty-eighth day of November before noon that day."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECTION.

Sir Irving Albery, Mr. Charleton, Major Sir George Davies, Colonel Gretton, Sir Arnold Gridley, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Parkinson, Mr. Roberts and Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.— [Major Dugdale.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SCOTTISH MEMBERS (MEETINGS).

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends again to call a meeting in Edinburgh of Scottish Members of Parliament?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): It will be advisable that any meetings in Edinburgh should take place during a Parliamentary Recess, but I am not in a position to suggest any precise date. Meanwhile, I pro-

pose periodically to issue invitations for meetings at the Scottish Office in London of Scots Members of Parliament. Members will be invited to these meetings on the basis of a regional or area grouping of constituencies. The gatherings will be quite informal, but I trust that the results will be of considerable benefit to all concerned and not least to the constituencies whom we represent.

AGRICULTURAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES (INFORMATION).

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has given agricultural executive committees in Scotland any instructions regarding the disclosure by their members and officers of information as to their proceedings, decisions and recommendations?

Mr. Johnston: It has been made clear to these committees that they are Government representatives, and that their proceedings are confidential. I have not so far found it necessary to issue detailed instructions as to how this general principle of Government agency should be applied in particular instances. There may, indeed, be cases in which some publicity is not only unobjectionable but even desirable. The implications of membership of these Committees are generally understood and are for the most part loyally observed.

Mr. Snadden: Does the light hon. Gentleman consider it inappropriate that a Member of this House should seek or obtain information from a committee as to their proceedings?

Mr. Johnston: It will obviously depend upon circumstances. These committees have Government powers delegated to them, and it would be highly inappropriate that they should disclose matters relating to the Department.

REFUSAL OF WORK (CONVICTION, DUNFERMLINE).

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that John Cairns, a dock labourer, 131, South Street, Lochgelly, was. sent to prison for 14 days at Dunfermline Sheriff Court, on 3rd November, for refusing to take a job as brusher at a colliery; and as Cairns did not refuse suitable work at the colliery, but stated he was not a


brusher and was afraid to assume such responsibility, he will take steps to have this sentence remitted?

Mr. Johnston: From inquiries I have made, I find that John Cairns was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for refusing to comply with directions given by the Ministry of Labour and National Service to take work as a brusher. I am informed that the local tribunal by whom his case was considered on appeal were satisfied that he had several years experience in such work and was fitted to undertake it.

Mr. Sloan: Am I to understand from that answer that a workman being transferred to a colliery, after having been away for a considerable time, is compelled to do such dangerous and responsible work as that of a brusher?

Mr. Johnston: The point is that the tribunal which heard this man's appeal decided on the evidence that he was an appropriate person to go, and I think a medical certificate was issued to that effect.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is a brusher? Most of us do not know.

Mr. Sloan: Since a brusher's job is one of the most dangerous and responsible in a colliery, do I understand that colliery managers are to be entitled to put a man on this job without his having a period in a colliery in which to recondition himself at the work?

Mr. Johnston: I can only say that in these matters particular cases are referred to tribunals who hear evidence on these appeals. In this case they decided that the man was fit.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that in this case the tribunal was so composed as to be able to judge a matter like this?

Mr. Johnston: I would like notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

STOCKS (SITES).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary for Mines whether negotiations are proceeding to establish coal stocking

stations; how long have the negotiations been proceeding; and when are fully-equipped stations to be ready to operate?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring, not to the general Government stocking programme, but to the special arrangements which my Department is making to stock coal in the colliery areas in order to minimise the effect on production of possible transport dislocation. These are intended to supplement the normal stocking by collieries at such times. Sites have already been acquired in South Wales, Durham and Northumberland and in each of these areas several sites are ready for use: the remainder are in various stages of completion. The work on these sites is being pressed forward, and I hope that they will all be fully equipped in the near future.

Mr. Taylor: If these sites had been functioning, would it have been necessary for us to lose the time we have lost during the last week or two on account of the lack of empty wagons?

Mr. Grenfell: The purpose of providing these sites was to prevent loss of working time, but they cannot be made ready without site equipment, such as railway sleepers and machinery for handling the coal.

Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the sites for stocking coal were not used, and can he give a guarantee that this year, where local authorities have given sites, they will be used?

Mr. Grenfell: I was anxious not to confuse these two types of sites. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Taylor) called attention to sites for stocking output as it is delivered from the shaft, while the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is thinking of stocking near the point of consumption. Both these means of stocking are well in hand.

Mr. Taylor: Were not these sites expected to be ready for this time of the year, so that they could be in operation on account of a possible shortage?

Mr. Grenfell: The answer is that we had not estimated that it would be so difficult to find appurtenances for stocking, as has since been discovered.

WAGONS.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that mines were idle recently in Northumberland for lack of empty wagons; and why arc facilities not working to enable wagons to be emptied to enable mines to continue working?

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any explanation for the stoppage of certain coalmines in South Wales due to shortage of wagons; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this position?

Mr. Grenfell: It is unfortunately the case that some time was lost recently in Northumberland and South Wales through unavoidable transport difficulties. Collieries have been asked in such circumstances to put as much coal as possible to stock at the pithead, and further outlets have now been created in both districts by the provision of Government stocking sites near the collieries. I am in constant touch with my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport with regard to transport both by rail and by sea, and, so far as the supply of wagons is concerned, a scheme of rationalised distribution of empty wagons to coalfield areas is now in operation.

Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that stress is being laid now upon absenteeism? The Ministry of Transport is appealing to men to go to work, and they remain idle because there is a shortage of wagons. This is having a very bad effect. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the facilities which exist at collieries at the present time are being fully utilised so that pits can be kept working?

Mr. Grenfell: It is intended that these men shall be kept at work every day, and in order that they shall be at work regularly it will be necessary to dump large quantities of coal at the new stocking places now provided.

Mr. Taylor: Has my hon. Friend satisfied himself that the facilities already existing for dumping coal are being fully used, or is it being left to managements to dump coal?

Mr. Grenfell: No, Sir, it is not being left to managements. Stocking is being done at the expense of the Government and on the instructions of the Government?

Mr. Taylor: But will my hon. Friend tell us—. [Interruption.] This is very important.

RETURNED MINERS.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines what is the number of miners who have returned to work in the mines during the last three months; how many have been prosecuted for refusing to return; and how many have been certified as medically unfit to return?

Mr. Whiteley (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Minister of Labour.
During the three months ending 6th November, 1941, just over 20,000 ex-miners reported for work at collieries. During approximately the same period eight ex-miners were prosecuted for failure to obey directions to return to the mines; in each case a conviction was secured. Prosecution is under consideration in 87 more cases. I regret that information is not available as to the number of men certified as unfit.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my hon. Friend convey to the Minister that there is deep resentment against the action of the Ministry in this connection, especially when men are directed to return to the pit, although they are already employed on work of national importance, and are asked to return to the pit at less than half the wages they are getting elsewhere?

Mr. Whiteley: Yes, Sir. I know that all those considerations have been taken into account.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that 11,000 ex-miners have been promised to return to the Yorkshire pits, and that up to now only 3,000 have actually returned?

Mr. Whiteley: I am not aware of that, but I will convey the information to my right hon. Friend.

ACCIDENT, MANCHESTER COLLIERIES.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to a fatal accident which happened at Mosley Common No. 4 pit, Manchester collieries, on 31st October, when it was stated in the evidence at the inquest that the working-place where the accident took place was in a dangerous condition; and will he have a full investigation made?

Mr. Grenfell: I have read the report of the inspector who investigated the accident and attended the inquest and the newspaper report of the inquest which my hon. Friend was good enough to send me. It was well recognised by both officials and workmen that the roof at the top end of the face needed special support, and, as stated at the inquest, this was in fact provided and particular care taken; but a small fall knocked out one of the supports and this brought down a larger fall which caught the deceased. This could hardly have been foreseen, and I find no evidence to indicate that before the accident the place was unfit to work in; but I have given instructions for a review of the system of support in order, if possible, to provide greater security from the risk of a breakdown in the system of roof support in this mine.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Minister also investigate the question of the conveyor? I understand that the noise of the conveyor along the face was such that the break in the roof could not be detected. Would not the use of rubber conveyors help to avoid such accidents?

Mr. Grenfell: All relevant considerations will be submitted in the investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Captain McEwen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent decision of the Kinema Renters' Society to enforce percentage rates for the hire of films; and whether he is aware of the harmful effect of this move by this combine on the continued existences of independent cinema proprietors throughout the country?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): I am not aware of any such general decision by the Kine-matograph Renters' Society. I understand, however, that members of the Society have indicated to one particular exhibitor that they will only supply his cinemas on percentage terms.

Captain McEwen: Will my right hon. Friend continue to keep an eye on the activities of this combine, in the interests of the independent proprietors?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes. Sir.

UNITED KINGDOM COMMERCIAL CORPORATION.

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the names of the directors of the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation; whether any of the shares are held privately; and what are the present functions of the Corporation having regard to the fact that the territories in which it was intended to function are now largely in German occupation?

Sir A. Duncan: The Directors of the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation are Lord Swinton, Mr. A. Chester Beatty. Mr. C. P. Lister, Mr. G. A. McEwan, Sir Frank Nixon, Mr. J. R Hambro, Mr. L. C. Paton. There are no privately held shares. When the functions of the Corporation were announced in Parliament on 4th April, 1940, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), it was stated that the company would be primarily concerned with trade with certain countries which are now largely in German occupation. It was, however, specifically stated that the Corporation might conduct business elsewhere if appropriate occasions arose. In the opinion of the Government those occasions have arisen and the activities of the Corporation have been extended with excellent results.

Mr. Garro Jones: Do the Corporation issue any reports on their activities, and, if not, would it not be advisable for them to do so?

Sir A. Duncan: I will consider that matter.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable perturbation in certain circles about the competitive activities of this Corporation?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. I am not aware that there is any perturbation any longer; there was, but I think the matter has been satisfactorily adjusted.

SMALL TRADERS.

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Location of Retail Businesses Order, 1941, he is prepared to take steps during the duration of that Order to prevent multiple shop organisations from buying up the businesses of independent retailers?

Sir A. Duncan: As at present advised, I do not propose to extend the scope of the Order on the lines which my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is throughout the country considerable discontent, particularly on the part of small retailers who have been thrown out of business as a result of the war, when they see the chain stores and multiple shop organisations flourishing? Is it not possible in some way to protect the interests of the smaller people and curb the activities of these octopuses in business?

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the policy of our party, the Socialist party, to eliminate the small man?

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is no part of the policy of any party in the House to eliminate the small business man in order to give advantage to the multiple shop organisations?

Sir A. Duncan: This is obviously a very controversial question, but with regard to the specific point put to me, I would remind hon. Members that the Retail Trades Committee, which made a report on this subject, advised that it would be very unhappy if anything was done to limit the possibilites of sale for the independent traders.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the policy of the Government not to play into the hands of the multiple shop owners but to further the interests of winning the war?

Mr. De la Bère: This matter cannot be lightly dismissed; indeed, it cannot be dismissed at all.

UTILITY CLOTHING SCHEME (PROFITS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the misunderstandings of the maximum gross percentage profits which wholesalers and retailers are permitted to retain under the Utility Clothing Scheme, he will re-state the position?

Sir A. Duncan: For a wholesaler the margin allowed on utility clothing must not exceed 20 per cent. of the price at which he buys from the manufacturer. For a retailer it must not exceed 33⅓ per

cent. of the price, including Purchase Tax, at which he buys from the wholesaler or manufacturer. In either case the price thus calculated must not exceed the selling price laid down for the goods in question by the relevant Order.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is the percentage fixed on the selling price or on the price which is paid to the manufacturer?

Sir A. Duncan: It is on the price which is paid to the manufacturer.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that in no circumstances can the retailer's profit include a percentage on the Purchase Tax?

Sir A. Duncan: That is the rule in the ordinary way where the prices were ruling before the Purchase Tax was imposed, but in this particular case the Central Prices Committee found it was a matter of great convenience that the Purchase Tax should be included in the cost before fixing the percentage. The percentage is correspondingly less than it would have been had the Purchase Tax been left out.

INDUSTRIAL AND EXPORT COUNCIL.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an assurance that the Export Council remains actively in being; and that research into present and potential interests is being maintained?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. The Industrial and Export Council continue to meet regularly, and the business members of the Council, who give their full-time services to the Board of Trade, are actively engaged, in close collaboration with the export groups, in watching the interests of our export trade.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable anxiety exists in the country about our future export trade, and will he enter into friendly conversations with the United States, pointing out that any repayment of lease-lend, if proposed, would inevitably involve an expansion of export trade after the war?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of the anxiety in many people's minds as to our position in post-war trade, but as I have pointed out on earlier occasions, our paramount duty at the


moment is to concentrate on winning the war. No opportunity is being neglected for having those discussions with the United States authorities to which the hon. Member refers.

ECONOMIC WARFARE (FRENCH SHIPS).

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare, to what extent there has been a relaxation in the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to intercepted Vichy ships and their cargoes?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): There has been no relaxation. As I informed the House on 30th July, 1940, His Majesty's Government had decided that it was impossible, for blockade purposes, to distinguish between Occupied and Unoccupied France. Metropolitan France, as well as Algeria, Tunisia and French Morocco is, therefore, treated for the purposes of Contraband and Enemy Export Control, as enemy-controlled territory. Thus goods destined for these territories are liable to be placed in Prize. I regret that nothing has occurred since July of last year which would enable His Majesty's Government to modify their view or to regard Unoccupied France as being, for blockade purposes, in a different position from other enemy-controlled territory. Moreover, the British Contraband Control regards as suspect any consignment not wholly covered by navicerts or British export licences or other appropriate documents carried to or from ports in the Navicert Area, and under the Reprisals Order in Council of 31st July, 1940, cargoes and ships not covered by the appropriate navicert or pass are liable to be seized as Prize. This rule applies to French ships as much as to any others.
Prize Court proceedings are only appropriate in the case of vessels carrying cargo, unless the ship is an enemy ship or has resisted lawful visit and search. Such resistance has always been regarded as in itself sufficient ground for seizure. But, at the time of the Franco-German Armistice, the Vichy Government refused to hand over, and have since employed for their own purposes, a considerable number of British and Allied vessels, and neutral vessels chartered to the United Kingdom, which happened to

be in French ports at the time. Accordingly, when French ships in ballast have been intercepted by our patrols, these have been retained, and have been put into our service as a measure of reprisal for the unwarranted and unlawful detention of our ships. If any further justification for our action were needed, it is provided by evidence which has recently come into our possession, shewing that some of these ships have been allowed to pass under the direct control of the enemy.

Mr. Hughes: Do I understand that the position is that any cargo destined for or coming from France can be seized, and that any vessel going to or coming from France can also be seized?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, that is so.

Mr. Hughes: Good.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that recently the answers to two Questions, on which supplementaries might have been asked, were circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will give an assurance that he will not again ask the leave of the House to circulate replies to this sort of Question?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): I do not know what particular Questions the hon. Lady has in mind, but I think hon. Members will agree that in view of the limited time available, the well-established practice of circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT answers that are long and detailed or contain a great many figures is one that suits the convenience of the House as a whole, and I see no reason to depart from the usual procedure in such cases.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that my right hon. and gallant Friend answered many Supplementary Questions concerning the pay of officers and other matters— and certainly Supplementary Questions would have been asked on this matter— may I ask whether in future he will give long replies at the end of Questions instead of circulating them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Captain Margesson: I think that when answers are long, especially when they contain figures, it is often best for the


House to have the chance to peruse them so that Members can later put down any Questions they wish to raise and receive an answer.

Miss Ward: What is the objection to following the usual practice by giving long answers at the end of Questions?

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Culverwell:

82. To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply why, in view of the shortage of metal, brass buttons are issued on Army and Home Guard uniforms? At the end of Questions.

Mr. Culverwell: I wish to raise a point of Order relating to Question 82 on the Order Paper. I have always understood that it was the duty of the War Office to order the type and quantity of equipment required and for the Ministry of Supply to provide it, and as the use of brass buttons involves great waste of time, labour and metal polish, I naturally put this Question to the Secretary of State for War and I should like to ask why it has been transferred to the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Speaker: We did not reach that Question to-day.

Mr. Culverwell: On a further point of Order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of what you have just said. I originally put down this Question, quite reasonably as I thought, to the Secretary of State for War, but it has been transferred to the Ministry of Supply for a day on which it was most improbable that it would be reached. Therefore, I am asking you why it was transferred to the Ministry of Supply, and, when it was transferred, why it was not put down for a day on which it would be likely to be answered in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have often explained to hon. Members that a Question should be put down to the particular Government Department concerned with the subject, and in this case I imagine the Minister of Supply was regarded as the more suitable Minister to reply to it. As regards the position of the Question on the Order Paper, that is a mere matter of chance.

Sir H. Williams: Is not this a Question which clearly should have been addressed to the War Office? The decision as to the kind of uniform worn is entirely within their responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Culverwell: Supposing I were to put down a Question to the Secretary of State for War asking why or whether snowshoes have been issued to the troops in Libya, could he possibly transfer it to the Minister of Supply?

Mr. Speaker: I could not say without seeing the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RELEASE (HUNT SERVANT, MONTGOMERY).

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the release from Army service of huntsman Harry Roberts to enable him to resume duties with the Plas Machynlleth foxhounds was made with his consent; and will he consider releasing miners rather than persons of such occupations?

Captain Margesson: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton) on 16th October. As regards the second part, I would refer him to the statement by the Prime Minister on the coal situation on 12th November.

Mr. Leach: I am not at all sure whether that is the answer to my Question. My Question refers to two matters about which I have no knowledge whatsoever. I want to know why this man has been released, and whether my right hon. and gallant Friend will promise not to do this again in other instances.

Captain Margesson: The reply to which I referred my hon. Friend was made on 16th October, 1941, and I do not think that my hon. Friend can have seen it before putting down his Question. The answer was as follows:
The soldier in question was released from the Army for a period of six months as a result of strong recommendations by the Ministry of Agriculture. In support of the application it was stated that these hounds were maintained for the sole purpose of protecting sheep and poultry from foxes, and that since his enlistment farmers had suffered severe losses. The Ministry are satisfied that in this mountainous district the only effective method of keeping down the foxes is to hunt them on foot with hounds and to drive them towards guns or towards their earths, where they are destroyed by terriers or other means."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1941; col. 1522, Vol. 374.]


I do not think my hon. Friend realised that this is not a question of hunts going out with huntsmen mounted and wearing red coats and so forth; it is really a matter of exterminating these foxes.

Mr. Leach: Is it the policy of the War Office to make further releases of huntsmen and not of miners?

BILLETING ALLOWANCE.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War why 23s. 11d. is the billeting allowance for a soldier when the billeting allowance for an airman is 27s. 6d.?

Captain Margesson: The amount payable by regulation for accommodation, attendance and four meals a day aggregates 23s. 11d. a week both for soldiers and airmen. Additional payments are made for additional services when necessary.

REQUISITIONED CHATTELS.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to appoint a court of inquiry into the circumstances of the requisitioning of the chattels at a camp of which he has been informed?

Captain Margesson: In the public interest it is proposed to requisition the chattels in question rather than continue the hiring agreement. I see no reason for setting up a court of inquiry in this case in which ordinary procedure would be followed.

Sir H. Williams: Has an inquiry of this nature already taken place?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir, not so far as I am aware.

Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend find out whether there has been a partial inquiry?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

MEDICAL BOARDS.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the long delay which occurs in obtaining a medical board, and subsequent discharge, by men on home stations who are believed to be incapacitated for further service?

Captain Margesson: Steps have recently been taken to simplify and accelerate the procedure for bringing soldiers before a medical board and carrying out their discharge in order to prevent delays of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. Revised instructions were issued on 1st November.

Sir I. Albery: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider whether it would not be better to send these men to depôts?

Captain Margesson: That is the effect of the new instruction.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT AND SEARCHLIGHT UNITS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a full statement on the functions of the antiaircraft units; the work of the searchlight units; and is he satisfied with the coordination and organisation?

Captain Margesson: The anti-aircraft defences of this country are deployed for the protection of areas and centres of vital importance to the war effort. Abroad anti-aircraft units are an essential part of any field force for the protection of ports and bases, and forward areas. Searchlights are employed in co-operation with guns as well as with our own fighter aircraft to assist them in their task of destroying night raiders. The present system of co-ordination is working very satisfactorily, but steps are continually being taken to improve the organisation in the light of new methods and ideas.

Mr. Smith: Has the Secretary of State for War read the observations, which were made by Sir Walter Citrine, with regard to the efficiency and weight of the anti-aircraft barrage of Moscow? If so, is he satisfied that we have taken steps to benefit from our experience and improve our organisation?

Captain Margesson: As I say, we are continually doing all we can to improve our organisation, but no man in my position could ever be satisfied.

Mr. Shinwell: Are the men in these particular units, who are forced into long spells or short spells of inactivity, afforded practice in the use of other weapons?

Captain Margesson: I do not think I appreciate the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Shinwell: If these men are inactive for a time in certain parts of the country, are they afforded an opportunity to indulge in training in other weapons?

Captain Margesson: They would have their ordinary rifle training, but their job is to man the anti-aircraft guns.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement on the educational facilities now provided in the Army?

Captain Margesson: As the answer is long and contains a great deal of detail, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Vyvyan Adams: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the A.B.C.A. publications are stimulating, well compiled, and of great value?

Following is the answer:

The scheme for education in the Army is a voluntary one. Demand is stimulated and organised by the personnel of the Army Education Corps, working through regimental officers, who undertake the duties of Unit Education officers and Unit Education Committees. Demands are met mainly from local resources provided—

(a) by the units themselves from military personnel;
(b) by Regional Committees for Adult Education in His Majesty's Forces, co-ordinated by the Central Advisory Council. The 23 Regional Committees are each based on a university. They include representatives of the universities, the various voluntary bodies whose business it is to organise education for adults in peace-time, and the local education authorities. The panels drawn up by the Regional Committees at present include some 3,000 lecturers and instructors;
(c) by the local education authorities direct.

Direct instruction is also given by other rank personnel of the Army Educational Corps, especially in Infantry Training Centres, Military and Emergency Medical Service hospitals and convalescent depôts. Lectures are given on a wide variety of topics. They comprise single talks or lectures, with opportunities for questions and discussion, courses of connected lectures

and informal talks. The number of set lectures given monthly is at present about 9,000. Class instruction is given by instructors provided by units, by visiting instructors provided mainly by the local education authorities, and by arrangement with local technical and evening schools. In the case of the last-named, transport may be hired, or War Department transport provided, for free conveyance of parties of not less than five soldiers to classes. Where fees are required, the local rate is paid from Army Funds. The subjects studied in classes are limited only by the demand and the local resources available. They at present number about 150 and some 3,000 classes monthly are being held.

Vocational correspondence courses have been drawn up in collaboration with the professional institution concerned. The subjects dealt with fall under the general heads of law, insurance, banking, engineering (civil, mechanical and electrical), surveying, auctioneering, estate and land agency, accountancy, secretarial, and grocery. Further courses may be added as offers of service are received from the professional bodies. Arrangements have been made in conjunction with certain commercial correspondence colleges to establish courses in more general subjects up to approximately matriculation standard. After formal enrolment of students by the War Office, the courses will be conducted direct by these colleges. An enrolment fee of 10s. is charged to the student. Text-books for organised classes, where not obtainable from public libraries or local educational authorities, are provided from Army Funds. The textbooks essential for the vocational correspondence courses are also provided on loan to the soldier from Army Funds. Arrangements are being made for these to be purchased and issued by the Services Central Book Depot, which will form a central lending library, for the purpose. Other educational books are obtained from public libraries, in conjunction with the National Central Library.

Special funds have been provided in order to encourage instruction in handicrafts. In addition a great many activities of a less formal but very valuable kind have been and are being developed in units, such as discussion and listening


groups, dramatic, musical, artistic and reading groups, debates and gramophone recitals. Educational and instructional films are regularly used and libraries of these are being formed. Talks suitable for discussion groups are given three times a week in the Home Service Programme of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and a news commentary and a talk on current affairs is given twice a week in the Forces Programme.

BATTLE DRESS.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether battle dress has been found satisfactory for all purposes?

Captain Margesson: Battle dress has been found satisfactory for all the purposes for which it was designed.

Mr. Bellenger: Have any representations been made to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman by commanding officers through the normal channels that the substitution of battle dress for service dress is perhaps deleterious as far as discipline and appearance are concerned?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir.

SOLDIERS KILLED ON LEAVE.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War, why soldiers on leave are treated as being on active service for purposes of discipline and military law, whereas they are deemed not to be on active service so far as concerns their widows' right to pensions if they are accidentally killed while on leave?

Captain Margesson: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Entitlement to pension under the Services war pension code, which is administered by the Ministry of Pensions, depends on whether the death or injury is attributable to military service, and the question whether the soldier is held to have been on active service or not at the time is irrelevant.

CINEMA EXHIBITIONS.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the conditions under which cinema exhibitions, for the benefit of enlisted men, are permitted to be held in camps, particularly on the two days preceding pay day, when there is a shortage of funds, calculated to discourage visits to public cinemas; and if, in view of the scarcity of projectors

throughout the country, which would not permit of any serious competition with local public cinemas, he will review the present arrangements, particularly in the case where local cinemas are agreeable to such an arrangement, although such requests are opposed in principle by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association?

Captain Margesson: If, as I assume, my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the agreement that films hired from the trade for exhibition to the troops should not be shown within two miles of a public cinema, I would refer him to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Captain Dugdale) on 15th July. No restrictions are, of course, placed on the exhibition of films owned by the War Office or Ministry of Information or of films hired from film libraries available to the general public.

HOTEL ACCOMMODATION, LONDON.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether his attention has been called to vacant hotels in Piccadilly and elsewhere in London; and whether he will consider taking these over as hostels for officers or troops generally;
(2) whether he is aware of the serious shortage of accommodation for officers in London, particularly on Saturday nights; and whether there is any central authority to whom officers who are stranded can telephone for information as to vacant accommodation?

Captain Margesson: All suitable available accommodation in the Central London area is being surveyed at the present time in connection with a considerable expansion, recently authorised, of the scheme for provision of hostel accommodation for troops stranded in London. The provision at public expense of hostels for officers in London is not contemplated. So far as it is possible to have up-to-date information at one place, the various information bureaux, set up in connection with Army Welfare, are always ready to help officers, and a notice to this effect is posted in all canteens and at the offices of Railway Transport Officers.

OFFICERS (AGE LIMIT).

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers have been informed that their services are no longer required on the ground that they


are over 41 years of age; and whether any alternative employment has been offered to these men?

Captain Margesson: No officers have been informed that their services are no longer required on the ground that they are over 41. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Maxton: Surely the War Office has issued a circular to the various commands warning officers of 41 or over that their services are to be dispensed with?

Captain Margesson: No officer has been informed that his services are no longer required on the ground that he is over 41.

Mr. Woodburn: Great indignation is felt by physically fit men who won distinction in the last war and who have been discharged simply on the ground that they are 42 or 43 years of age. I have put a case before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I hope he will look into it.

Mr. Maxton: If a man over 41 is physically unfit for a particular job, will he be discharged from the Army?

Captain Margesson: Not at all. A man who is unfit for a particular job might be fit for something else.

Mr. Maxton: I am thinking of a general circular which has been issued. An officer, Colonel Elliot, wrote to the "Times" about it.

Captain Margesson: There is no circular saying that a man has to go at 41.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances serving officers of field rank are retained on the active list for duty with their regiments when over 60 years of age; and whether this practice is to be discontinued forthwith?

Captain Margesson: As regards the first part of the Question, only in exceptional circumstances are officers retained in active employment beyond the age limits laid down for their respective ranks in Article 522 of the Royal Warrant. So far as field officers are concerned, the age for a lieutenant-colonel is 55 years. Exceptional circumstances are only held to exist when there is difficulty in replacing an officer who has reached these age limits. No change in the present practice is contemplated. So far as majors are

concerned, they may be retained in employment up to the age of 55 provided that they are in every way suitable, but will not be retained beyond that age unless their retention is especially sanctioned by the Army Council.

Colonel Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there has been any alteration made in the age at which officers are eligible to command units of the Field Army; whether a reduction in the age of officers eligible to hold senior staff and administrative appointments under the rank of lieutenant-general is also contemplated; and whether opportunities will be given to officers in the early forties, who are to be relieved of their present commands, to fill these senior staff and administrative appointments provided they are fitted to do so as a result of their experience and satisfactory service in the present war although not physically fit for active service in the field?

Captain Margesson: The answer to the first two parts of the Question is "No, Sir." As regards the last part, every effort is made to find suitable re-employment for officers who for any reason other than indiscipline are removed from field force commands or staff appointments. My hon. and gallant Friend will, however, appreciate that physical fitness is as essential for staff officers of field formations, whatever their rank, as it is for regimental officers.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Are steps taken when officers are discharged as no longer useful in the service to pass them on to the Ministries of Labour and National Service for the use of their experience and ability in other spheres of the war effort?

Captain Margesson: We always do our best.

HOME GUARD.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to supply those members of the Home Guard who have considerable marching to do with coupon free socks or, alternatively, to issue coupon free wool in order that their friends and relatives can knit socks for them?

Captain Margesson: I am afraid that in view of the supply position a coupon-free issue of socks or wool to the Home Guard could not be justified at the present time.

IDENTITY CARDS.

Captain Elliston: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any rule laid down as to the punishment a serving soldier receives for losing his identity card; and is it the same for all ranks?

Captain Margesson: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir"; the second part does not therefore arise.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that British prisoners of war in German hands are being treated in all respects in accordance with the Geneva Convention, in particular whether they receive rations at the standard of depot troops; whether they receive the specified clothing; whether then-is overcrowding in some of the camps; and whether collective punishment is inflicted contrary to the Convention?

Captain Margesson: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the German Government's discharge of their obligations under the Prisoners of War Convention has not been satisfactory in certain respects. In particular, no information has yet been furnished by the German Government as to the scale of rations of depot troops in Germany, and I am not satisfied that British prisoners are receiving the full scale of clothing to which they are entitled. A few cases of overcrowding have been reported, and there have been one or two cases of action by the German authorities which appears to be an infringement of the provisions of the Convention relating to collective punishment.

Sir A. Knox: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend state why it was considered necessary to hand out a bouquet to the German Government recently by issuing an official statement to the effect that the Germans were carrying out the provisions of the Geneva Agreement?

Captain Margesson: I think a good deal of disquiet was created by an announcement which was made by someone about what took place before he got back within the orbit of the prisoner of war camps in Germany. It was felt that some reassuring statement on that point was necessary.

Sir A. Knox: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend explain why numbers of letters from prisoners of war, passed by the German censor, state that the Germans are not carrying out their obligations?

Captain Margesson: If we receive information of that sort, we at once inform the Protecting Power and try to get things rectified.

Mr. Thorne: According to that statement, prisoners of war in Germany are not being so well fed as Hess.

Sir William Davison: With regard to overcrowding in camps, can my right hon. and gallant Friend state the reasons for changing over some 3,000 officer prisoners of war to a new camp, and can he assure the House that the conditions there are satisfactory and are not overcrowded?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me the particular instance, and I will make inquiries.

Captain Elliston: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he has any information as to whether the British prisoners of war intended for exchange during the recent negotiations were brought to Dieppe ready for embarkation?

Captain Margesson: No information is yet available on this point, but inquiries have been made through the Protecting Power.

NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes are to be reimbursed for stores commandeered from them by the Army during the battle of France?

Captain Margesson: This matter is under discussion between the War Office and the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes.

Mr. Bellenger: What is the purpose of that discussion? Is it for the purpose of reimbursing N.A.A.F.I. funds, which, in the main, belong to the Services who utilise N.A.A.F.I.?

Captain Margesson: We are looking into the whole position and seeing what is the best thing to do in the circumstances.

PIGEONS.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that those officers who have been appointed to the various commands in connection with the care of pigeons required for war purposes, are fully qualified for this service; and whether he is aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction among many of those who have loaned pigeons for this service at the manner in which birds have been injured and lost because of inexpert handling?

Captain Margesson: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CO-ORDINATION.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a further statement regarding the methods which have been introduced to effect an increased co-ordination between the Labour Ministry, the Labour section of the War Ministry, the Treasury, Board of Trade and the Army fighting needs?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I see no reason to make a further statement upon this subject in advance of the general Debate on man-power which will take place within the present month.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how little has been done, and how much remains to be done, in the way of co-ordination? Surely he is aware that real co-ordination has never existed?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly not accepting any of those sweeping statements.

Mr. De la Bère: Nevertheless, they are true.

WOMEN.

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women are at present, or according to the

latest available returns, employed in the civil Departments of the Government in established and temporary posts, respectively, in the grades of Principal and above that of Principal, respectively, excluding posts requiring medical, scientific or similar professional qualifications, and excluding posts of purely advisory character?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): On 1st October, 1941, 13 women were employed in the Civil Service in administrative posts above the grade of principal, and 59 in posts of principal or broadly similar grading. Of these 12 and 19 respectively were established Civil servants and one and 40 respectively were temporary Civil servants. These figures relate to grades in the administrative class and exclude executive, specialist and advisory posts.

Major Adams: Do not these figures reveal a very low proportion of women in responsible positions? In order to encourage their war effort, will my right hon. Friend consider revising his policy and giving larger responsibility to a greater number of women?

Sir K. Wood: I think that our policy is moving constantly in that direction.

SICK LEAVE.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Treasury regulation, whereby a civil servant falling temporarily ill before he or she has completed six months' service receives no pay for the period of absence, causes serious hardship on women censorship examiners and others, under present conditions, when they have to live away from home and are unable to pay for their board and lodging during their temporary illness; and whether he will take steps to modify these regulations at least for the period of the war?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I am aware of the regulation to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not think it unreasonable to require a temporary employee to serve a qualifying period before becoming eligible for paid sick leave. I would remind the hon. Member that temporary employees receiving not more than £250 per annum, among whom the examiners in the Postal and Telegraph Censorship


are included, are compulsorily insured under the National Health Insurance Acts, and are accordingly entitled to sickness benefit, subject to fulfilment of the statutory conditions.

Mr. Strauss: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise the hardship suffered by, say, a censorship clerk who has been only five months in the service and is ill for three weeks and during that period is unable to claim board and lodging although she has been sent away to a distant town? The health insurance scheme does not cover that position.

Mr. Grenvil Hall: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend ask the Minister to look into this state of affairs, because this is a real hardship?

Captain Crookshank: I think it was reasonable and proper, as I said in my reply, that there should be a qualifying period before sick leave is granted, among other reasons because there is no medical test before the engagement of temporary employees.

GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA (CO-OPERATION).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether the co-operation between the war executives of Great Britain and the Soviet are yet as close as they were between Great Britain and France when France was free and an Ally?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, so far as geography and other conditions allow.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXIT PERMITS).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take an early opportunity of clarifying the rights of Members of Parliament to travel within and without the United Kingdom; and to suggest a procedure whereby any objections the Secretary of State for the Home Department may have to particular movements of any Member shall be communicated to that Member who shall then be entitled to refer them to a Select Committee of the House, appointed for that purpose?

The Prime Minister: I had hoped that, as a result of the Debate on 21st October,

it had been made clear that there is no intention of using the control necessary for security reasons in such a manner as to put obstacles in the way of hon. Members carrying out their Parliamentary duties and that the relevant Regulations will be liberally interpreted in their application to Members of Parliament. If any case should arise in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary doubts whether he would be justified in granting an exit permit he will always be ready to discuss it with the hon. Member concerned. I do not think any further clarification of the position or the establishment of any new procedure is necessary.

REGULATION 18B (HOME SECRETARY'S POWERS).

Commander Bower: asked the Prime Minister on what grounds he has satisfied himself that the powers granted by Parliament, under Regulation 18B, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department have not been abused, having regard to the fact that detentions under this regulation are at the sole discretion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is not bound to disclose his reasons for any such detention?

The Prime Minister: This matter has been fully debated in the House of Commons on three occasions, and, having regard to the provision made by the Regulation for the hearing of objections by Advisory Committees and to the facilities afforded to persons detained to communicate with Members of Parliament, I have no doubt that if these powers had been abused, it would not have escaped the notice of Parliament or of His Majesty's Government.

ATLANTIC CHARTER.

Mr. Leach: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the widespread public uneasiness respecting the present position of Indian, Burman, Ethiopian and Palestinian issues; and will he consider making some far-reaching democratic declaration on each of them to fit in with the Atlantic Charter?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on 9th September, to which I


have nothing to add. As regards Ethiopia, the attitude of His Majesty's Government was made quite clear in the statement which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made in the House on 6th August last.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Does not the right hon. gentleman agree that the basis of sound strategy, whether it is in the East or anywhere else, is the willing cooperation of free peoples?

The Prime Minister: It sounds all right.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

WAR LOANS (BANK COMMISSION).

Mr. Sloan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the sums paid to the banks in commission on the various 2½ per cent. and 3 per cent. loans?

Sir K. Wood: The total commission paid to the banks on 3 per cent. War Loan, 2½ per cent. National War Bonds and 3 per cent. Savings Bonds issued since the commencement of the war amounts to £875,000 which represents commission at the rate of one-eighth of one per cent. on total subscriptions of just over £700,000,000.

Mr. Sloan: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what service these sharks are rendering to the nation in return for this gift that is being fed into their capacious mouths?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's statement. This is not a gratuity but is, as I stated before, for work done by the banks.

Mr. Bellenger: Is this 2s. 6d. per cent. the same as it was pre-war, and, if it is, does the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the large amount of loans that are being issued, that we could possibly get this work done a little more cheaply in war-time?

Sir K. Wood: I have looked into this matter. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a good deal to be done in obtaining subscriptions, and there is a certain measure of out-of-pocket expenses.

EXCESS PROFITS TAX (CAPITAL COMPUTATION).

Mr. Jewson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the need of avoiding waste of man-power, he

will consider taking steps to simplify or curtail the method of calculation of capital now adopted by the Board of Inland Revenue to comply with the provisions of Section 29 of the Finance Act, 1941?

Sir K. Wood: I am not aware that Section 29 of the Finance Act, 1941, has introduced any undue complication into the computation of capital for the purposes of E.P.T. The substance of the matter is simply that, subject to certain well defined exceptions, no deduction in respect of borrowed money is made in the computation and borrowed money is treated in the same way as other capital.

TAXATION (EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOME).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the changes which have taken place since the outbreak of the war, he will take some steps to define more clearly between earned and unearned income in connection with future taxation?

Sir K. Wood: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend has in mind. Perhaps he will communicate with me on the; matter.

WAR DAMAGE ACT (STAFF).

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Chanceller of the Exchequer what is the total number of the staff in the United Kingdom which is employed in carrying out the War Damage Act; what is the annual cost; and how much has been expended to date in connection therewith?

Sir K. Wood: As the Answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Answer:

The staff employed by the War Damage Commission numbers 1,415, the annual cost of whose salaries is £360,000 and whose cost to date is £166,000. The Board of Trade employs a staff of 854 on the administration of the War Risks Insurance Act and Part II of the War Damage Act at a cost of £184,609 a year in salaries. Their cost to date is £74,000. It is impossible. to allocate the number and cost as between the two Acts.

In addition, the Commission utilises the services of members of professional bodies as the occasion requires and the various


insurance schemes for which the Board of Trade is responsible are operated mainly through the principal fire insurance companies and Lloyds. The Board of Inland Revenue, His Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Assistance Board also do a considerable amount of work arising out of the Act. This work, however, is done as part of the ordinary duties of those Departments and I am unable to give figures relating particularly to war damage work.

PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS (STOCK CONVERSION).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the completion of the stock conversion operations recently carried out by several local authorities, he is prepared to allow conversions of high interest-bearing securities issued by public utility undertakings?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied, after consulting the Capital Issues Committee, that it would be in the national interest to allow public utility undertakings to convert issues bearing interest at over 4 per cent. to lower rates, by offers on terms and at dates to be agreed in each case, provided of course that the offers are within the terms of the prospectuses upon which the issues were originally made. In the first instance I propose to deal with those cases in which Treasury consent in principle has already been given: I must emphasise, however, that I cannot see my way at present to lift the present ban on other optional conversions.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (WAR DAMAGE CONTRIBUTION).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the policy that the people owning their houses and in receipt of supplementary old age pensions would have consideration given to them in respect to payment of war damage contribution, he will say what steps have been taken to make this effective?

Sir K. Wood: Collectors of taxes, by whom the war damage contribution is collected, have been instructed that in cases such as those to which my hon. Friend refers payment is to be accepted in such instalments as the circumstances of the particular case may justify.

Mr. Tinker: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has got my Question properly. I am dealing with those in receipt of supplementary pensions. I understood from a former reply that they would get some further relief when they applied for it. Some are getting the relief but not all, and if I send information to the right hon. Gentleman, will he examine it and give a general ruling as to what should be done?

Sir K. Wood: I will certainly examine anything my hon. Friend sends to me.

GOVERNMENT BORROWING (BANK INVESTMENTS).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in oases where banks transfer their lending to the Government from Treasury deposits at 1⅛ per cent. to National War Bonds at 2½ per cent., what steps are taken to ensure that the investments in War Bonds are restricted to genuine savings, resulting in the contraction of private spending, and that the Treasury is not paying the additional 1⅜ per cent. interest on bank-created credits?

Sir K. Wood: The money out of which the banks lend to the Government is, broadly speaking, derived from deposits made by customers in the ordinary course of their business, and there is no question of banks creating credit for the purpose of lending money to the Government. I should add that only a part of such portion of the Treasury Deposit Receipts held by the banks as has been redeemed is on the banks' own accounts, the remainder being in respect of subscriptions by customers.

IMPORT DUTIES (GOVERNMENT GOODS).

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make about the removal of import duties on goods imported for Government purposes?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. Treasury orders have now been made exempting from duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the Import Duties Act a range of goods the bulk of which are imported for Government use. The Orders will be published, and will take effect, to-morrow. I should like to take this opportunity to make it clear that the exemptions in question are unconnected with tariff policy and are designed as a war-time measure to save the labour involved in the collection


of the duties from Government Departments. They are made possible by the fact that all imports are now subject to rigorous control, and in that connection I can state that all the Departments concerned with imports will maintain their close contacts with the industries. I would also add that when it becomes necessary to consider the post-war position of our external trade, the industries concerned will be called into consultation.

Mr. A. Edwards: Are we to understand that no goods for the war effort which have ultimately to be paid for by the Government are to pay duties in future?

Sir K. Wood: That is the broad effect of it, but if I have to amend that, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

AMERICAN VISCOSE CORPORATION.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement with regard to the progress of the negotiations between the Government and Courtaulds, Limited?

Sir K. Wood: As was agreed at the time of the sale to the Treasury of the shares in the American Viscose Corporation, discussions have been proceeding with Messrs. Courtaulds Limited and the determination of the amount to be paid by the Treasury in respect of the acquisition of the shares has been referred to an Arbitration Tribunal consisting of two arbitrators and an umpire. I am glad to be able to say that Mr. Justice Gavin Simonds has consented to undertake the task of umpire and the arbitrators are Sir Alan Rae Smith, Chartered Accountant, of the firm of Messrs. Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths & Co., and Mr. B. H. Binder, Chartered Accountant, of the firm of Messrs. Binder, Hamlyn & Co.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the arbitration proceedings the Treasury will not oppose in principle the inclusion of compensation for loss of the valuable influence in the viscose markets of the world which the American Viscoses holding gave to Courtaulds and will he also give an assurance that the submission to arbitration will be without any limit on the Government's liability?

Sir K. Wood: The submission to arbitration will be based upon the letters which have passed between the Govern-

ment and the company. Of course, I cannot give any undertaking as to the basis of determination.

MARSHAL PETAIN (TRANSFER OF ANNUITY).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the precise sum transferred recently by licence of the Treasury to Marshal Pétain; whether the licence covers any future or periodic payments, or will for that purpose be renewed; what is the name of the Canadian company concerned; and whether the approval of the Canadian Government was sought or obtained to the transfer?

Sir K. Wood: The licence covered the instalments of the annuity of £6oo due for the half years ended 25th July, 1940, 25th January, 1941, and 25th July, 1941, and future instalments. In reply to the third part of the Question, the contract which was entered into in 1937 was with the London Office of the Confederation Life Association, a Canadian company. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the negative. The transaction was one for which the United Kingdom Government had to take the responsibility.

Mr. Silverman: In the light of those answers, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the considerations which led him to give this exceptional treatment were really sound and withdraw the licence before the transfer of the money?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The matter has recently been considered by the Government, and I stated their considered judgment last week.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the difference between this exceptional accommodation to Marshal Pétain and lending aid and comfort to the enemy?

Sir K. Wood: I ventured to give the reasons for the decision of the Government last week.

Sir W. Davison: Why do the Government think it justifiable to allow money to go out of the country to Marshal Pétain in France when, at the same time, it is impossible to send money to the United States and the Dominions?

Sir K. Wood: I have dealt with that consideration.

Captain McEwen: Will the withholding of this money do anything to assist us to win the war?

Dr. Russell Thomas: Does it go out in the form of goods? How else can we pay?

Mr. Silverman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

THEFT, NORTH LONDON.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any information in connection with the case of Stanley Pearse and others, who were charge at the Old Street Police Court, on Saturday, 8th November, with stealing 12,000 boxes of matches; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have made inquiry and find that Pearse and two others were charged in connection with the theft of a quantity of matches and other articles from some premises in North London. The cases were disposed of on 15th November, when Pearse was bound over for 12 months and placed on probation, and one of the others was sentenced to one day's imprisonment. The charge against the third man was dismissed on the ground of insufficient evidence. I am informed that about three-quarters of the stolen property has been recovered. No further action in the matter is contemplated.

Sir W. Davison: What has happened to the matches? It would be very valuable if the public could have some.

ROYAL NAVY (LEAVE, FAR EAST).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that men of the Royal Navy serving in the Far East have not been home since the outbreak of war; whether arrangements have been made for their transfer to home stations; and what progress has been made?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): Although every endeavour has been, and is being, made to transfer to home stations men due for relief from the Far East, it has not been possible to do this in every case owing to transport and other difficulties. The majority of men who were serving on the China station at the outbreak of war have, however, already been relieved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Commander King-Hall: May I, on a point of Order, raise the question of what the Business is for to-day and how the matter has been arranged? It may be that I am ignorant of the procedure and do not know how to find out. I see a suggestion in the "Times" that a certain matter is to be discussed to-day, but that does not seem to be a very satisfactory method of communicating the information.

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): It is proposed to continue the general Debate on the Address to-day, and I understand that among other matters questions relating to the National Fire Service and religious education will be raised.

Commander King-Hall: Again I ask whether I can be told how these subjects are selected, and how does one find out that those will be the subjects?

Mr. G. Strauss: On a point of Order. I take it there is no restriction on the Debate to-day. It is not a day set apart for a special subject, as I understand will be the case subsequently?

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: On a question of Procedure, may I ask whether, when the Government have arranged for the House to choose a certain subject for Debate upon the Address, it is open for any hon. Member to discuss widely the Address or any aspect of it on that particular day or any other day?

Mr. Speaker: The subject for discussion to-day is the Motion for an Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, and any Member can raise any question he likes in that Debate.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Major Anthony Marlowe, for the Borough of Brighton.

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS. [Third Day.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November]:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our

humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."— [Captain Pilkington.]

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE.

Sir Ralph Glyn: The opportunity of this Debate permits me to ask the House to give a few moment's consideration to the present position of the National Fire Service, which is now the fourth Defence Service in the country. On it are placed very great responsibilities. We all feel that we should like to take an early opportunity of expressing our admiration for the wonderful work done by the old Fire Brigade during the Germans' air attack last spring. Those who were in London during that attack frequently saw firemen of the London Fire Brigade who, having worked all night, were still cheerful in the morning, having accomplished great tasks with great success. The same is true of other cities which suffered. Hon. Members who sit for constituencies associated with those areas well know the extraordinarily good work that was done under the old organisation.
I believe it is the duty of this House to consider one or two matters concerning the National Fire Service. I have always understood that a National Defence Service must be the care of Parliament, because for reasons of discipline and organisation, it is essential that Parliament, and only Parliament, should be acquainted with the position and should hold the responsible Minister to account in this House. The first thing to be remembered is that, under recent Regulations, entry into the National Fire Service now ranks above entry into the Army. That may come as a surprise to a good many people. I ought to qualify my statement by saying that men between certain ages are not being taken into the National Fire Service. When a man is called up and goes to an Employment Exchange, he is given the preference of joining the Navy, the Air Force, the National Fire Service and, last, the Army.
One matter requires immediate attention. The National Fire Service inherits the great prestige of that service which went before it, and it is important that nothing should be done to besmirch in any way the honour of the National Fire Service. We do not want embusqués in this Service. We do not want men to


creep into the National Fire Service as a means of escaping duty elsewhere. We want to be perfectly sure, also, that, in the administration of the National Fire Service, the men selected are truly competent and receive appointment for no other reason. It ought to be the business of this House to review the actual position of the National Fire Service from time to time. As the appropriate Regulations were issued last August by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his capacity as Minister of Home Security, it is competent for us to ask how the scheme is progressing after these months have passed.
I do not think many of us have appreciated the extraordinary foresight that was shown in 1937–38 by the then Home Secretary and his officials, in visualising the effect of a heavy air attack on this country. When first the proposals were introduced for the formation of the Auxiliary Fire Service and for providing a national equipment, many of us felt highly critical against the conduct of the present Lord President of the Council. As Home Secretary, he set up in the Home Office, under a very respected Civil Servant, the administration of this new Service, and those of us who had any contact with it in those early days must have been acquainted with the efficiency shown and the consideration given to every hon. Member who put a case forward. In other words, the Service started with the confidence of this House.
The next thing was that the present Home Secretary introduced the proposals which are now embodied in the Fire Service Emergency Provisions (No. 1134) and explained them to this House. Great emphasis was placed at that time upon the Service being based upon a regional organisation. I hope the House will draw attention in the near future to the way in which the regional organisation is being misused. There is a great deal about the old organisation which could be useful and play a part in local administration. At the present time it takes all the bumps and gets none of the credit. It was stated that the chief regional fire officer would be responsible for supervising what was done in each region and for seeing that the traditions and the position of men who had proved themselves under the old local government services would be looked after.
When the regulations came out, it appeared that the whole matter was centralised and could not be dealt with by regional fire officers. Apparently, nobody can be dismissed from the Fire Service unless the Home Secretary approves. The lumbering-up with centralisation is extreme. If you over-centralise the National Fire Service, you are bound to tread on the corns of men who have given years of voluntary service as part-time firemen, who are proud of their work and who now find themselves put aside on various grounds. I suppose most hon. Members have heard from such men in their constituencies and know how sorry they are that more use is not being made of their services. I believe that if the organisation were allowed to remain more in the hands of the regions and less centralised in Whitehall, we should get over these difficulties with greater success. Everybody knows that in fighting attack from the air you must have trained men. To have a lot of amateurs, no matter how keen or how brave, is not enough. I think we all admit that something on the lines of the National Fire Service is essential, but many of us feel that it is bad for the morale of the country and of the organisation itself, to have in purely rural areas, men polishing the nozzles of fire hoses, at rates of pay which are quite adequate for 24-hour duty in the city, but are, possibly, somewhat large for sitting in a rural fire station.
In a good many of the regions they have set up training establishments which are gradually overtaking the need for more trained men, but those facilities are not yet sufficient. There are still many shortcomings in the establishment of the Service, and I believe that until it is more recognised as an essential Defence Service than it is to-day, we shall not feel assured that the keen men in the larger administrative posts are getting all that they think necessary. The organisation is extremely expensive, and the hierarchy which has been set up is tremendous. Under the regional officer there are divisional officers, column officers, senior company officers, company officers, section leaders, leading firemen and firemen. In addition there is the women's group, in which there are the senior area officer, the assistant area officer, the group officer and so on. This organisation will probably amount, eventually, to between


300,000 and 500,000 people. The administration is, naturally, localised and has to be connected up to the regional headquarters, and if an attack develops on a vulnerable point, it devolves upon the column officer and the fire force officer to delegate sufficient pumps to quell the first outburst and also to draw reserves from other parts. All this is highly complicated and involves a network of communication. It assumes that you will have an adequate number of men including part-time men, to man the engines and pumps, if the scheme is to work satisfactorily.
Under the Regulations laid down in August, there are various particulars of the conditions of service and of how discipline is to be maintained. There is no mention throughout of any trade union. I want hon. Members opposite to believe me when I say very sincerely that I regard trade unions as an essential part of the industrial life of this country. I do not believe it possible to have negotiating machinery without them. But, equally, I believe that if this is a National Defence Service you must not have dual loyalties. You are undermining the discipline of the officers by doing so. If it is right for the National Fire Service to have a trade union, why not the Army, the Navy and the Air Force? Some hon. Members will say that that simile is wrong. They will ask: What about the police? Have the police not got a trade union? But the police have not got a trade union. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember the organisation that was set up a few years ago to enable the police to have their conditions made more or less uniform throughout the country. It will be remembered that Lord Desborough was the head of a commission which made recommendations. To-day the police are not nationalised as a national force. The police to-day still serve under the watch committees of different local authorities, and there is far more reason, in their case, to have somebody which will see that there is uniformity in the treatment of the various police forces of the country, organised as they are on a local authority basis, than there is in the case of the National Fire Service.
The present Home Secretary was a highly successful and much respected Chairman of the London County Council [HON. MEMBERS: "Leader"] I beg par-

don,—leader of the London County Council. A former clerk to the county council is now a respected and distinguished Civil Servant, and the head of the National Fire Service was the head of the London County Council Fire Brigade. So that the triumvirate at the head of the Service is principally representative of the London Fire Brigade. I do not think you could have a better cradle in which to bring out efficient administration. But it is inevitable that there must be certain people in Newcastle, Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham who have a great sense of civic pride and a great belief in the efficiency of their services. They would like to see their ideas put forward and considered and this could be done if only the Government would place the regions more truly in control of this Service and not centralise it so much in London.
I believe that Mr. Jack Horner, who has been sending me, and no doubt other hon. Members, statements of what he wants done is a most efficient organiser. I am equally sure that in the days before the National Fire Service was formed the membership of his union was comparatively small. I do not know—I have not asked—but I believe he takes pride in saying that from 80 to 90 per cent. now belong to it. It would be interesting to know what conscripted men—remember that—who have to join the National Fire Service have to pay as dues to this union. It would also be interesting to know what is wrong with the Service, because there is something wrong—and I will come to that in a moment—which makes it possible for an outsider, but a skilled fireman, such as Mr. Horner, and some very able local representatives, to ask Members of Parliament to meet them and to discuss with them matters of discipline and pay and organisation generally. It is indeed an innovation of democracy to have trade unions dealing with men who have been conscripted. I do not know how it is going to work. I do not believe it is right, and I am convinced that it is not fair to the men who have been put in charge of the Service. You have to trust the men you appoint to responsible positions and hold them responsible to the Minister, who is himself responsible to this House. Do not let us run away on side issues connected with unions, dealing with conscripted men in a national service. I am sure that is wrong, and I think hon. Members opposite know that


it will get us into a jam if it goes on. The grievances which are put forward by the men are, I am afraid, in many cases justified.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: May I ask my hon. Friend to tell us whether he would suggest some alternative machinery to take the place of the trade union's activities?

Sir R. Glyn: I am coming to that in a moment. In the proposals that have been put forward by the Fire Brigades Union in regard to allowances and the treatment of dependants, I believe there is a very real grievance, which the men feel very much. It should not be dealt with by agitations and meetings. I saw it stated in the daily newspaper which I read every day that there have been 400 meetings; the correspondent of the paper said that they were most admirable meetings and that the spirit of the men was excellent. I do not doubt that for a moment; my complaint is that it should not be necessary to have these meetings. What is wrong at the top? There is obviously something wrong, and I venture to think that the present Home Secretary has plenty to do as Home Secretary. I know the Lord President had plenty to do when he was Home Secretary, at the time when the Ministry of National Security was hardly hatched out of its egg. He sat on it and hatched out something which was quite successful, but I do not think he ever intended to live with it when it got so big.
Who is supposed to look after this vast Service? I believe it is the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). I am told by the firemen that he is responsible for this great Defence Service. The hon Member for Huddersfield has now, I am sure, considerable experience in connection with fire services, but I venture to suggest that when there are half a million men taking part in the defence of this country, it is not sufficient to put them under a Parliamentary Secretary. It is ludicrous to suppose that, unless you decentralize to the regions, which you are not doing, there will not be grievances not dealt with, so long as there is this bottleneck at the top. There can be no excuse for the wife of a fireman who is seriously hurt by enemy bombs having to depend, after a certain period of weeks, on public assistance. I think that is wrong. I also

think it is wrong to treat rural fire organizations like the organizations in Liverpool, London, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry or anywhere else. Everybody in the country knows that it is not necessary to have full-time men, paid in excess of the agricultural rate, sitting around apparently doing nothing. I know that if the call should come, they would do a great deal, but the fact is they have not the opportunity of doing it. What is to be done can be perfectly well done by part-time firemen.
How far is the hon. Member for Huddersfield planning out the future of post-war fire services in this country? Somebody must be thinking about it. In the region in which my constituency lies I asked the other day whether any geographical points were being selected for fire-centres for the rural fire fighting services, with due regard to the essential factories which are now being put down in the rural areas. I was told: "No, nothing of the sort is being done. We have to play the cuckoo, and turn out the local fire brigade if it happens to have a fire station, irrespective of where it is, because it is impossible to get buildings." That seems to me to be rather absurd. It is only another indication that planning is necessary, not only for the present but for the future, and in doing so the organisation must be given the status of a great National Defence Service.
We are told by the Prime Minister that he wants constructive criticism, and this presumably is the opportunity to make some humble contributions. First of all, therefore, I would like to ask whether it is necessary to have a Fire Brigades' Union as the only medium through which the men can put forward their grievances. Would it not be much better if Mr. Jack Homer and the others could be absorbed into that part of the administration which, not being subversive of discipline and not risking any dual loyalty, would ensure to the regions an immediate representation of any grievances and an immediate chance of having things put right?
Secondly, I would like to know whether there is any control whatsoever over the levy paid to the Union by the men who are conscripted to join the Fire Service. It is probably a great deal more than it was when there was a smaller


number of fire brigades which had to look to the Fire Brigades' Union as the only medium for obtaining continuity and uniformity throughout the country. Next, I should like to know whether it is not possible to differentiate between the cities and the rural areas. Conditions are so completely and utterly different. There are some admirable men belonging to auxiliary fire services and local authority brigades in the rural areas; they have rendered wonderful service, and they now find themselves subordinated to men who have done no fire fighting at all, who do not know the district and who have been conscripted into the Service. The chief officers of some of the local brigades know all the district, and surely they need not be thrust completely aside. These are not the days in which to throw away good material; they are the days in which we should use it to the best advantage.
Then, is it really necessary to have 24-hour spells of duty in a rural area as well as in the cities; and what is the opportunity for owners of factories to have some association, through the fire prevention organisation, with fire fighting? It is only in Great Britain that fire lighting is completely and utterly divorced from fire prevention. They are completely different organisations, and in the regions the officer responsible under the Commissioner for fire prevention has nothing to do, as far as we can make out, with fire fighting. Somebody else has to deal with that, and I am not at all sure that it does not come under another Minister. At any rate there must be some association between the fire prevention service existing in factories, dumps, etc., and the fire fighting service. If the National Fire Service is realty to be efficient, why in the name of reason is it still necessary to keep fire fighting organisations and other services outside its jurisdiction? I know of dumps containing valuable military stores which the regional fire officer has no power to enter In case of fire the Service fire brigade does its best, but I am told they are amateurs—so they are called by the regional fire officer—and he cannot even insist on knowing the conditions of efficiency in the depot or dump. They may call on outside brigades for help, but there is no liaison of any sort. There is another big factory making urgent

stores for aircraft. If the place catches fire, the last thing to put on it is water. Water, on this particular commodity, will stop production, with an aircraft engine bottleneck. The other day there was a small fire. The fire prevention people knew that they must deal with it with sand, but not with water. Along came the local fire brigade. On came the water, completely ruining a product wanted by the Ministry of Supply. I do not blame them; it is simply because there is riot that contact between the one and the other. If it is possible to look upon the National Fire Service as a national service, and one to which you are empowered to conscript men, this House must take some interest in it to ensure that these grievances are corrected. I suggest that Mr. Homer and his friends should, somehow or other, be drawn into the organisation. We should not permit this anachronism of a trade union as the only medium to put forward ideas in a National Defence Service.
Let me say one word in conclusion. I think that we are probably going to have a far heavier air attack than we have yet had. I believe that, whether these grievances are put right or not, these men will fight the enemy as courageously and as splendidly as they have done before. But I do not believe it is right—it is certainly wrong of this House—to see that there is any legitimate grievance that we cannot put right by our own initiative without being dragooned by an outside body. Our responsibility we cannot shirk, and we must see that the conditions of the wives and dependants of these firemen and the conditions of the men themselves, are put right quickly, that the organisation at the top is worthy of the wonderful spirit of the men below.

Mr. Silkin: I regret to say that I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that a good deal of his speech was devoted to attacking the Fire Brigades' Union. I believe that his speech would never have been made but for the agitation which that union has carried out. I believe that he would never have known the grievances of the men but for the publicity given to those grievances by the union. But for the union these men would have had no opportunity of expressing themselves at all, and their griev-


ances, if any, would have remained entirely unsatisfied. The hon. Gentleman seemed to me—I hope he will forgive my saying so—to have a very slight acquaintance with the organisation of the fire brigade Service at all. For instance, he talked of it as a conscripted Service. It is nothing of the kind. It is true that under the National Service Act a number of men have been drafted into the Service, but by far the vast majority of the Service is a voluntary service of men who joined the Service before the war, and to talk of it as a conscripted Service is really entirely misleading. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the effect of the National Service Act was to discourage volunteers from continuing in the Service, and he said that every Member of the House had had experience of volunteers having been encouraged to leave the Service. I am bound to say that it is not my experience. Volunteers have remained in the Service and have been encouraged to remain in the Service.

Sir R. Glyn: I never said that. What I said was that they did not like to have whole-time men put over them. As for conscription, it is a conscript Service if a man has to serve and can elect to serve in that particular branch of National Defence.

Mr. Silkin: As regards the volunteers, they are in exactly the same position as before. There is no change. If they objected to whole-time men being over them, they must have objected before. There has been no change in that respect at all. I merely say that as indicating to my mind that the hon. Gentleman has very little acquaintance with the Service itself. He talked of embusqués. As if any man would choose the fire brigade service as a shelter from military service. There are much more healthy shelters than the fire brigade. One's experience in London, which I know is true of many other cities, is that there has been a very large number of casualties, deaths and serious injuries in the fire brigade. It is an extraordinary proposition to me that any man anxious to avoid military service should go into the fire brigade for safety.

Sir R. Glyn: Does the hon. Gentleman know how many men there are in the National Fire Service who never see a fire but are employed in administrative jobs?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot answer that question, but there must be very few employed in administration, and administration is not confined to the National Fire Service. You have it in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. I do not imagine that the proportion of people engaged in administration in fire brigades is any higher than the proportion in the Fighting Services; I should say, if anything, less. Really, I think that the hon. Member is quite wrong in suggesting that a Service which has done great and noble work is in any respect a Service for shirkers from the other Services. As a matter of fact, the reason why the National Service Act was passed at all was that men over 35 had been given the option of joining the Civil Defence Services instead of the Fighting Services, and not sufficient men had been produced for the Civil Defence Services. It was for that reason that the National Service Act, which enabled the authorities to compel men to go into those Services, was passed. Obviously, it was not an opportunity that men were running after to avoid service in the Army, Navy or Air Force. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, also, in regarding this Service as in any way a military Service. It is a Civil Defence Service, and I remember very well on the occasion of the Debate on the Second Reading, the Minister of Labour and National Service made a strong point of the fact that this was a civilian Service, not a military Service.
Therefore, it being a civilian Service, is there any reason why these men should not organise themselves into a trade union if they so desire? As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Home Security has recognised trade unions for other Civil Defence Services. It has also negotiated with them, as I believe it has negotiated with the Fire Brigades Union. For the life of me, I can see no reason why they should not. The hon. Gentleman has suggested as an alternative that Mr. Jack Horner and his friends should be brought into the administration, that they should, in a way, be converted into a company union. But surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that if it is intended to bring about a solution of the problem, it must be a solution which will be acceptable to both parties. He knows perfectly well that there have been more strikes and difficulties and more controversy arising over this question of company unions than over


almost any other question. Surely the men are entitled, if the hon. Member recognises that they are to have an opportunity of putting forward their grievances collectively, to have an independent organisation, independent of the Ministry, and one which can speak for them, irrespective of what the Ministry might think. Surely, it will be recognised that a well-organised Service would be a much better disciplined Service and would result in much better work than if it were unorganised. Surely, it is essential that these men should have the opportunity to ventilate their grievances and to get them remedied. I am sure that the permission for this union to exist is good and in the interests of the men. I also agree that, whether these grievances are remedied or not, as my hon. Friend said, if the hour of need comes, those men will carry out their duties to the best of their ability. I feel that these grievances have had rather short shrift from the Minister. I should like to give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to state the reasons for the rejection of the men's claims.
There are five of these claims in all. The men claim that they should now be put on the fixed basis of remuneration, and not on the Civil Defence rate. The auxiliary firemen are doing exactly the same work as the regular firemen, working side by side with them, and it seems wrong that the regular firemen should get a higher rate of pay. The auxiliary firemen work the same number of hours, and they are now equally well trained. In fact, the object of forming a National Fire Service was to weld the whole organisation into one big service, and that welding has been successfully carried out. The regular firemen are quite in agreement on this point—the objection does not come from them. My hon. Friend declares that there is a Civil Defence rate for all Civil Defence workers, that these men are Civil Defence workers, and that it would be unfair for them to be paid at a different rate from other Civil Defence workers. I realise the force of that argument. If my hon. Friend had been consistent, and had carried the argument right through, there might have been something in it. But in the rescue service men are paid a higher rate than the Civil Defence rate. A carpenter, for instance, in the rescue service is paid at the trade rate for car-

penters. I have had a good deal to do with the rescue service, and I know what I am speaking about. How can you defend the payment of different rates to men who are working side by side at the same job?
Moreover, the regular fireman is paid at the full rate in sickness, while the auxiliary fireman is limited to 13 weeks' payment. Cases have been reported in the Press of men who were seriously injured in the course of their duties, and who, after 13 weeks, have been dismissed from the Service, their sick pay stopped, and the men compelled to rely upon the Poor Law. It is scandalous that men injured in the course of those duties should have to go to the Poor Law. It is equally scandalous that if a man is working with another fireman and both get injured, the auxiliary fireman ceases to get compensation at the end of 13 weeks, although the regular fireman continues to receive it indefinitely. Then there is the question of discipline. Quite rightly, a code of discipline has been laid down for the Fire Service. The complaint of the men, and I think a legitimate complaint, is that the administration of the code is entirely in the hands of a superior officer, and that they have no right of appeal to an independent person. With the best will in the world, an individual may be wrong, or may be prejudiced, or may be vindictive; yet the whole future of a man may depend on the decision of his immediate superior. We recognise everywhere the right of appeal, but the fireman has none, except to other officers.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): To the Regional Commissioners.

Mr. Silkin: In certain cases. The complaint is that they have not that right, generally speaking. If my hon. Friend has altered that, so that they now have the right to go to an independent person, that grievance ceases to exist. Then there is the question of hours. There, again, I think they have a legitimate grievance. In the main, they work 48 hours at a stretch, and then have 24 hours' rest. Generally speaking, they have nothing to do. They say that they are perfectly prepared to carry on indefinitely when there is work to do, but to have to carry on for 48 hours at a time with nothing to do seems to me, and certainly seems to the men, to be unreasonable. I recog-


nise that it might be necessary to have some system by which the men were at call in case of need. That could easily be devised by forbidding the men to go far away. Finally, they complain about the lack of opportunity for promotion. Here I am merely repeating their allegation, because I have no proof. They claim that there is favouritism as regards promotion. I put that allegation forward for what it is worth. I have had two instances given to me, with which I do not propose to trouble the House, but which would appear to call for some explanation. Possibly the explanation would be forthcoming.
I imagine that the men would be well satisfied if they had equal pay with regular firemen, some readjustment of hours, and equal treatment as regards sick pay and accident pay. They would be prepared possibly to forgo any concession on the other matters—at any rate, until they are able to put up a much better case than they have been able to put up to me. I feel that they have not had altogether satisfactory treatment from the Minister, who has rejected all their claims offhand and given them nothing at all, treating the matter merely on the basis that they are Civil Defence workers and that they have to put up with the conditions of other Civil Defence workers. I hope that he will reconsider the matter. The country does not realise even to-day the immense debt of gratitude it owes to fire brigade services throughout the country. It is true that some have not had an opportunity of showing their worth, but if they have that opportunity, they will be equally as gallant, skilful and courageous as the others. Wherever these men have been tried they have not been found wanting. They deserve the very best treatment that this House can give them.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-on-Tyne, North): The course of this Debate has shown so far that the House is mainly interested in three or four subjects, that the prestige of the Prime Minister remains unimpaired and that his critics are very few indeed in this House, and I believe they are fewer still in the country. But it has also shown that there is a certain distrust of some of the colleagues of the Prime Minister, although it is not very evident who those

particular colleagues may be. It has also shown that we in this House, representing, I believe, the feelings of the country generally, are anxious to do all that we can to help Russia in her hour of need. It is considered by some Members of this House that in a totalitarian war, the kind of war in which we are now engaged, we are not exercising a drastic enough policy with regard to the conscription of labour and in matters of production.
It is clear that, if the Prime Minister were to decide to throw one of his band of brothers to the wolves, there are in this House a good many hon. Members who would have no hesitation whatever in suggesting to the Prime Minister the most suitable successor to that victim. But if there were two of his band of brothers thrown to the wolves, we should all of us be at considerable difficulty in deciding who the successor was to be for the second place. For myself, I frankly admit that I should not anticipate that we would be any nearer a speedy victory if, for instance, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winter-ton) were selected to fill the vacancy or even my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). The truth of the matter is—and we must not disguise the fact from ourselves for one moment—that we are suffering to-day in exactly the same way as we suffered in 1914. We started this war utterly unprepared, and we cannot expect to have everything that we require ready in a very short space of time. Both industrially and militarily, we were not in any way ready for a major war, but the difference between this war and the last war is a very material one. In the last war we were able to check the German onrush before it had gone too far, and we were able, therefore, or we were given time for that reason, to organise our war effort and to improvise armies. In this war the collapse of France, the greater preparedness of Germany, the immensely more complicated armaments that are required and the tremendous rapidity of movement have rendered our task of improvisation a thousand times harder. Even if the Front Bench opposite were filled with supermen, they could not be expected to get our machinery of war going in anything like the same time as was done in the last war.
However, the question arises—and it is a question which has been ventilated in this Debate and which any critic has the right to ask—whether we have done and are still doing all that is humanly possible to expedite production and whether our organisation of supply is the best possible? It is extremely difficult for the ordinary man really to express an opinion upon such a subject, but all of us in this House are more or less in touch with those who are definitely connected with industry, and their points of view are continually being brought to our notice. Certain matters arise which require looking into and upon which the Government should give a reassurance to the House in this Debate. To-day one hears, on all sides and from all sorts and conditions of people, of the immense waste and extravagance that are going on and of incredible delays in production and the lack of a formed plan, as far as one can see, in the methods which are employed. I personally have always considered that the great mistake in the conduct of this present war has been to separate the two Ministeries of Supply and Labour. It would have been infinitely better if the people who were responsible for supply could also have been responsible for the labour required to produce the necessary supplies. There are cases of which I know, and probably they are known to other Members of this House, where factories have been built and equipped and nothing has happened for a very considerable time because the necessary labour is not forthcoming. That is going on, I am sure, all over the country, and it certainly has been going on in my own part of the world.
The Minister of Labour was, I think, gravely mistaken when he did not conscript labour after Dunkirk, when he came into office. I can understand that he was opposed to anything like that as a matter of principle. Such a procedure was opposed to everything he had stood for all through his life. But we are living in a grave emergency, and in a grave emergency you must be prepared to change your old ideas, at any rate, for the time being. Now we have this same Minister of Labour touring the country and telling us that things are "desperate" and threatening to conscript women to work in the factories when he signally failed to conscript men. From all I have seen myself and from what I am told there is a

great deal too much of the old Civil Service tradition in the way of administration. No one holds a higher opinion of the Civil Service than I do. I belonged to it in a minor sense at one time, and I have been intimately acquainted with it and its procedure all my life, but what is good enough in times of peace is not good enough in time of war. When you have things referred back from one branch to another and from one office to another, and you have everything referred to committees, you are not going to get things done quickly.
There is a very good rule that it is better far to get a thing done, and perhaps not quite as well done as you think it ought to be done, rather than to go on waiting and scheming to improve the thing so much that when it is produced it is the most perfect thing of its kind in the world. I should like some kind of assurance that this method of referring everything to a committee is not to be the practice for the rest of the war. I know we have a most distinguished ex-Civil Service official sitting on the Treasury Bench—the Lord President of the Council. No one could have a greater admiration for his official ability than I, but I sometimes wonder whether he would not be well advised to change his old conceptions for the time being and let offices get a move on more quickly than they are doing at the present time.
As regards the actual prosecution of the war itself, I think we must be very grateful for the improved situation which exists. I can understand perfectly well the great anxiety there is in the country generally to do something more active to help Russia. Last night, before I came to London, I had a deputation of workers to see me from Tyneside. They came to tell me how much the working people in their part of the world were anxious that we should take prompt action on the Continent, in a military sense, to assist Russia and that we should create, as they said, a Western front. They pointed out what was being said in the Press about the advisability of such a course, and they said that Stalin himself had suggested that it was the right thing to do. They told me that if the workers were assured that we were doing all we could to help Russia, they would increase their output by 20 per cent. I pointed out to them that the situation was fully


appreciated by His Majesty's Government, as expressed in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, and I also pointed out that the Prime Minister had given every assurance that everything we could possibly do to assist Russia by supplies, and money too, no doubt, was being done, but when it came to this question of establishing a Western front, I tried to explain to them the difficulties of the situation.
It is a curious thing that in this House and the country generally those who are most anxious that we should start a military expedition on the Western front, as it is vaguely described, are those who a short time ago were the leading advocates of disarmament—some of them avowed pacifists. At any rate, they were men who rather looked down on the military and were determined that we did not want armies in future. It is these gentlemen who are so active now in telling us that we must embark upon an expedition on the Western front. I do not know, and if I did I should not say, how many ships are required to convey a single British division across the sea. But I do know how many ships are required to convey a single strengthened German division across the sea, and I think I am perfectly at liberty to divulge that secret. It requires 50 ships, each of 5,000 tons, and as I pointed out to my friends in the North last night, it is quite impossible that we should be able to find the requisite shipping for carrying out such an undertaking at the present time. It is not one division we should want, but 30 or 40 if it was to be an effective military effort. My friends then suggested that we ought to make little incursions into the Western front which would keep the Germans wondering what we were going to do next. My reply was that such incursions or cutting-out expeditions would not lead to the movement of a single German division from the Eastern front; in other words, that although it might be good for the morale of the people in the country wherever the expedition went, providing it was successful, it could not have any effect whatsoever on the war at the present time. That being so, it seems to me that we must bide our time, as things are, until the right moment comes.
I reminded my friends as I should like to remind the House to-day, of an old maxim of Napoleon, who said:
The whole art of war consists of a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive followed by a rapid and audacious attack.
It is perfectly obvious that if final victory is to be obtained, the German army must be defeated in the field, and until the right moment arrives we should be singularly ill-advised to risk another adventure such as that which led to the retreat from Dunkirk, the Cretan incident or our intervention in Greece. Another front will develop itself before any of us are much older, if we are to judge from the events which are passing to-day. For the time being our task is to help to the utmost of our ability by supplies—and active intervention wherever it may be possible—to the Russians in their struggle against our common foe, the Germans.
Now that the Russians have been forced into the fight we are in a position infinitely better than we were before that event happened. When France failed us the whole basis of the policy of this war was knocked out; we had no military Ally of any kind on the Continent. Now we have a great military Power associated with us, and everywhere we see on the Continent a revival of that spirit of independence among the conquered peoples which must ultimately mean the end of Hitler. Our task, therefore, must be to strengthen our Army in every possible way, to build up immense reserves of power and, above all, to see that we are secure at home, because that is the real and true meaning of Napoleon's maxim about the defensive. What is the good of our attempting to strike out all over the world unless we are quite certain of ourselves? There are people who tell us that we have no need to fear an invasion of this country, and I am always thankful, therefore, when the Prime Minister and his colleagues remind us over and over again that the real danger to us in this country is at home.
We must have at home an Army strong enough to resist an invasion, and when we are in that position, then, and then only, can we look to a foreign expedition in which we shall meet the German army on land. I am certain that the duty of the House, the duty of us all, is to make it clear to the people outside, who are in-


fluenced by so much that is written by unthinking people in this respect, that the policy of the Government at the present time, from a military point of view, is the only wise and sensible one. No more uncertain expeditions. Our task, when expeditions do take place, is to see that our forces are strong enough for what is expected of them and that we are never again in the position in which we were in 1940-41. That is the main lesson that we ought to have learned, that it is perfectly ridiculous and wrong in every way to risk, simply for the sake of satisfying public opinion, another Continental expedition until we are thoroughly prepared for it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will not follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam) into all the arguments he used, but will return to a subject which, at the moment, does not appear to have been fully cleared up, although some aspects of it have been ventilated by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). One remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle would possibly serve in some manner as a text for the few words that I want to speak. He said that the real danger is at home. I wish to reinforce that statement by saying that one facet of that danger must not only be studied, but every preparation must be made to meet it, through the National Fire Service. When the hon. Member for Abingdon opened the Debate on this subject I could not help but feel that he was under some misapprehension as regards the type of organisation that is being built up and the comparison of the present, and we hope the future, organisation with that which obtained in the past.
A good deal was said both by the hon. Member for Abingdon and by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on the subject of a union, but I do not think they made quite clear the grounds on which such a union would carry on its activities. It may well be, in my opinion, that when a National Fire Service has been fully formed, with something of the same form of structure as exists in the Fighting Services, a union will not be a necessary means of expression, but I think it is very hard to say, at the present stage of development of the National Fire Service, what will be the best means by which

those within the service can express their feelings and their possible grievances.
The hon. Member for Abingdon made a charge of over-centralisation as regards the National Fire Service. After listening very carefully to his speech, I am not entirely clear as to the basis of that charge. If he meant that there is too much control in London over the fire-fighting operations in the regions, I think he is manifestly wrong. My experience and observation in the regions leads me to say that if my hon. Friend had studied that aspect of the matter rather more closely, I think he would not have made any suggestion that that is the case. If, on the other hand, he meant that in selecting those who are now, and are to be, officers in the new National Fire Service, the control at the centre is too great, again, I think that if he had studied the methods of selection of those officers, he would have found that they were examined and interviewed in the regions, and that it was only those who applied, and who were thought fit to apply, for the highest posts of command who were, in fact, interviewed by a central selection board in London. On both those counts, I think that if my hon. Friend will examine the position rather more closely, he will agree that some of his statements were perhaps rather wide of the mark. As far as I have been able to observe and ascertain, there is no attempt in London to control the actual fire-fighting activities of the regional organisations and no attempt from the centre to dictate who should or who should not hold responsible posts within the regional fire-fighting organisations, except in so far as the central selection board was set up to examine, interview and vet those who applied for posts in the higher command of the fire services.
My hon. Friend went on to refer to the rural areas and those concerned in the National Fire Service in those areas. It is true that he prefaced his remarks by some admirable statements about the need for efficiency in fire fighting being the only gauge as to the value of the men within the Services, but at the same time, unwittingly, he cast a slur upon those who have to stand by, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, in the rural areas, not only to protect the vulnerable points within those areas, but ready to reinforce the fire services stationed in


big centres should they be subjected to sudden attack. I think that the picture he suggested of idle men sitting in the countryside waiting for something to happen gave an entirely false impression. In making that remark, my hon. Friend should also have said that there have been many thousands of idle men—idle through no fault of their own—sitting in the cities waiting for something to happen. The fact that the men to whom my hon. Friend referred are in the country does not imply in the least that their local knowledge is the only thing that must be considered in the question of appointments. The actual methods of fire fighting in war-time are so widely divergent from—one might say contradictory to— those which existed in peace-time that an entirely different set of knowledge and facts must be in the possession of those who are in control. Many firemen in responsible positions have told me that if they had fought fires in peace-time as they have had to fight them in blitz conditions, they would have got the sack next day.
Fire fighting in peace and in war has very little in common. We all know that there must be many disappointed men—excellent men, and, with great respect, grand old men—who have spent many years of their lives organising local fire services and bringing them up to a considerable pitch of enthusiasm and efficiency. But does that mean that they would be the right men to control the movement of large numbers of pumps from one area of the country to another, and does that mean that they would be the right men to care for the welfare of the personnel and maintain the machines under conditions which they would find impossible to visualise merely as a result of their peace-time experience? We all respect these men, and I think that it would be wrong to suggest that they are being thrown out of their areas. They are not being thrown out. If it is a question of resenting more experienced men being put over them, then, if we are to accept the statement of the hon Member for Abingdon, that efficiency is the only test, we must ask, to gauge their value, whether their experience is the right experience. Quite obviously, those who have had experience of fire fighting in a blitz and have proved that they can not only handle the men but care for their

welfare under these conditions, are the men who have first claim to hold positions within the new National Fire Service.
What other statements were made by the hon. Member which may also have quite unwittingly misled the House? There is the question of fire prevention, and in this connection I speak purely from my own personal experience. His suggestion that there should be a closer link between regional headquarters seems to me to smack of that very thing to which he objected—over-centralisation. If there is a fully trained and efficient branch of the National Fire Service in any area, much the best policy, as regards fire protection, is organisation within the area itself, and I can assure the hon. Member and the House, from factories within my own personal knowledge that that link is not only very close but is very real, and that when of necessity the local fire service have to be called upon to assist, they have not only known what to do and how to do it, but they certainly have not committed anything like the blunders contained in the story which the hon. Member told. By and large, I would say that no one can criticise very much the administration of the National Fire Service at the present time and over past months. The Fire Fighting Service has had and still has grievances which it is the duty of this House to put right. But would it not be fairer to examine the picture when it has been more fully painted?
We are in the process of building up a vital Civil Defence Service—I would call it a military defence arm. Fire is one of the oldest and strongest weapons an enemy has ever used and modern methods of raising fire have very much outstripped modern methods of prevention. We should fully appreciate the immensity of the risk and recognise the necessity for wider training, but we must also look at the problem as it is at its present stage of solution. Do not let us pretend that the organisation is even yet complete. It is not, and it is nothing like complete. I wonder if the hon. Member realises that in selecting men for the higher command in the National Fire Service, with very few exceptions no records of service had been kept. I think, therefore, that the House will appreciate the enormous difficulties which existed in selecting suitable men with a background and a history be-


hind them. I believe that this matter has been put right, and that in future complete records of service will be kept in the same way as in the other Services. Let us be fair, and let us withhold judgment, but not necessarily criticism, until the organisation, the structure and the framework of the picture are complete.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I am afraid that it was not until Question Time that I knew that this matter of the National Fire Service would be brought before the House. I should like to say a few words on behalf of the claims which have been put forward by the firemen. In my opinion they are fair and reasonable claims. I am not going into the academic discussion of divided loyalties as to whether a union should exist in a Service, but if these men had been treated with fairness and justice I do not believe any of these questions would have arisen. As they do not appear to have been treated with fairness and justice, the men had no other alternative but to combine and try to force their opinion upon the Government. The hon. Member who opened the Debate also referred to conscription. I believe it has been made quite clear in this Debate that for the most part these men have not been conscripted, but in any case they are in no different position compared with large numbers of people in this country. Miners are forced to work and many seamen have to return to their ships whether they like it or not, and they are liable to prosecution if they do not do so, but no one would suggest that the Miners Federation or the National Union of Seamen should be disbanded on that account.
Let us consider the claims of these men. First of all, they ask for a uniform wage. They are not asking for an excessive wage, but merely for £4 a week throughout the country. At the present time there are, I think, about 20 different rates of pay in existence. I believe that many regular firemen in this country are in agreement with this demand, and I am sure that it is not beyond the power of negotiation to put this matter on a proper basis. Another claim relates to the hours of service. At the present time men are working about 112 hours per week. That is a very long time, especially when one remembers the disagreeable surroundings—the basements and garages and so on—in which these

men have to serve. They suggest that their hours should be limited to 72 per week, and I consider that to be a fairly reasonable claim. I do not suggest for one moment that they should not work during a blitz; they are willing to do so. I have seen these men working during a blitz, and I can assure the House that they are exposed to conditions as severe as those which any soldier might have to face. There are many other people employed by the Home Office who are asked to work many fewer hours but with far greater pay.
The other thing that they ask for is increased sickness benefit. We all know how dreadful it is to think that anyone who suffers injury due to enemy attack should be thrown upon public assistance after 13 weeks. That has happened over and over again.
They are asking for better disciplinary methods. The disciplinary code, which is a new code, is highly unsatisfactory. It is chiefly concerned with punishing the men by taking away their wages. Those who suffer are not so much the men as their wives and their families. I believe my hon. Friend would not resort to severe measures of that kind if he could avoid it. Normally he would allow the offence to be tried by a magistrate, and a fine of perhaps 10s. imposed It may be argued that these people should have entire military discipline and be confined to barracks. I have heard that suggested, but men who are already doing 112 hours a week in basements could hardly be confined very much longer, because there would be not much of the week left.
They also complain of the unfairness of promotion. I do not think there is any doubt that promotion has gone to those who have inside interests, those who are able to pull strings here, there and everywhere, who have been in the Fire Service before the war. I believe that promotion should rest entirely on efficiency and service. That is the only basis on which it should take place. I believe that many very good firemen have been pushed into the administrative part of the service. Men who are expert firemen should be kept outside, to make the brigade as efficient as possible, and they should recruit others for the administrative parts. The right hon. Gentleman has built up a great and splendid bureaucratic machine, which is what we should expect from the


right hon. Gentleman, but if the human elements which make up that machine are not treated fairly and justly, he can never expect the machine to function efficiently. I believe he has procrastinated, and that is a fault that he frequently indulges in.
I am not a trade unionist, and I have not been briefed in this matter by a trade union or anyone else. As a barrister, I do not belong to any lawyers' society, and, as a doctor, I do not belong to either of the two trade unions which represent the medical profession, either the Medical Practitioners Union on the one hand, or that more sinister and anti-social body, the British Medical Association, on the other. I approach the matter from a purely neutral standpoint and from the standpoint of justice and fair play. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here, he would have had nothing to fear. He need not have brought the Prime Minister with him in order to safeguard him, nor would he have needed to invoke the great Parliamentary abilities of the Prime Minister in order to deflect the mind of this House from one of contumely to one of satisfaction, which, I believe, happened on a recent occasion.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I wish to put one or two of the points which are most strongly felt. Perhaps the most important is this: A Regular soldier and a Militiaman get exactly the same treatment in sickness or in health. The regular fireman and the auxiliary, on the same job, get different treatment. An injured regular gets his full pay, while an auxiliary, with perhaps a fractured thigh, at the end of eight weeks goes on to the civil injuries scheme and loses his pay of £3 10s., going down to 35s. If he is a married man, that must be a great source of anxiety. If he has no private means, he has to fall back upon public assistance. The cost to the Treasury would be exceedingly small. Not more than 5 per cent, of injured firemen are unfit for duty at the end of 13 weeks, which is the outside range for which at present they get full pay. The moral effect on men and on their wives and families would be tremendous.
With regard to the penal code, the wage of £3 10s. a week is based on the cost of living. If a man has £6 10s. taken off, at 10s. a week, that is very hard on his wife. A way out would be to do what

you do in the Army and give the men, in addition to their basic wage, proficiency pay. If a man misbehaves, you can take that from him and it will not affect the wife, though she might say something to the husband afterwards. If he got that as well, it would be an encouragement to proficiency and doing the job properly. One of the greatest mistakes made at the beginning of the war was paying officers and men of the Auxiliary Fire Service at the same rate. It made a tremendous difference to morale when the officers had their pay raised.
On the question of hours, I should like to say a word or two on the question of what the men do when they are confined to their quarters. Many of them while away their time making toys for the children—a very excellent object. Many of them feel very much that they would welcome any opportunity given by the Minister of Supply to make some small gadgets which would not require a great deal of skill and allow the money so earned to be given to the Firemen's Benevolent Fund. If the Minister would give consideration to that, it would go a long way to pleasing them. With regard to the union, if it had not been for its agitation many Members would not have known of the troubles of the firemen at all.

Mr. McLean Watson: We are indebted to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) for having raised this discussion. I can assure him that some of his remarks at any rate will not be lost on this side of the House. The National Fire Service is not the only national Service that we want to see established, and, if the rule that he has endeavoured to put- before the House is to be the rule with regard to all national Services, we shall have to discuss and re-examine the matter very closely. We on this side have been in favour of the nationalisation of mines for a very long time, and we believe that even under a nationalised system we should require the services of a miners' union to look after the interests of the men, because conditions underground are so varied that uniform conditions cannot be laid down. We have also been in favour of the nationalisation of railways. I believe that the hon. Member is interested in railways, and I suppose that if his dictum were accepted and we nationalised the railways,


the railwaymen's unions would have to go because there would be no need for them in a nationalised system. The hon. Member may say that what we are discussing is the fourth defence system. I wonder whether he could put up an argument against either the railways or the mines being regarded as part of our defence system? In the present situation they are as great a part of the system of defence as the Fire Service.
Those of us who were privileged to take part in the discussions upstairs a few years ago on the Fire Brigades Bill knew that the stage that we had reached at that time was not the final stage; it was simply a stepping stone towards the National Fire Service. That Service has now come and the hon. Member has put up an argument against the continuation of a union being associated with it. He says that it should be in the same position as the Army, Navy and Air Force and that no union should be attached to this fourth defence service. We on this side of the House believe that in the present situation the firemen are justified in banding themselves together to see that a proper system of wages and conditions is established. The time may come when there is such satisfaction within the Service that a union is no longer required. If that ever becomes the feeling of the men they themselves will see that the union is terminated. They will not continue it longer than they feel it is required. The present system has developed since the previous Act was passed and we began to get local authorities to work together to undertake fire prevention. Since that system began to work we have been gradually getting on to the National Fire Service. It is unnecessary to cover the ground that has been admirably covered by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) who put up the case for the men and did it effectively. I agree with the position as he stated it and as it has been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas). The men have a just grievance. Men are engaged in this Service working the same number of hours and doing the same work for different rates of pay. We shall not get satisfaction in the Service so long as that is permitted to continue. I would appeal to the Minister to have this matter carefully examined. I have considered the demands put forward carefully and I believe that they are justified.
I will not discuss the qualifications of the men who have been appointed as regional controllers. I daresay that the best men available have been selected and that they are doing their best to form in the various areas fire brigades that will be capable of dealing with fires in both the larger towns and the rural areas. There is, however, one thing on which I want to touch, because I am in communication about it with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Where local authorities who have previously been in control of the fire brigades have been discussing plans for the setting-up of a new system, it is surely only reasonable that the controllers should consult the authorities who know their areas best as to the regions that are to be set up. I am in communication with the Secretary of State about a case where a scheme that had been drafted by the local authorities was brushed aside by the regional controller, who put a new system of his own in its place. That is not good enough. When we are building up a National Fire Service, in which, I agree, the regional controllers should be given a considerable amount of power, there should at least be consultation between the controllers and the local authorities. I hope that as a result of to-day's discussion this matter will be re-examined by the Home Office and that a real and honest endeavour will be made to get a settlement of the dispute that is already in existence between the Fire Brigades Union and the Home Office. If the Home Office want to get rid of a union of that kind, the only way to do it is to have satisfaction among the men who are in this new Service. I hope that we shall have some assurance that as a result of the agitation of the union we shall have harmony and satisfaction in this our latest national service. I would have liked to say something about the question of conscription. We are having a great deal more conscription than we really enjoy in this country, and there is nothing surer than that when the war is over a great deal of that conscription and compulsion will have to go. These are restrictions that we are willingly bearing in the circumstances of the day, but when we can breathe again freely many of them will have to go.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): At the opening of this Debate the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R.


Glyn) said he thought the time had come when the House might properly inquire how the scheme which established the National Fire Service was progressing. It is now almost six months since the House adopted the Bill upon which this nationalisation was founded, and I must say that the Department welcomes this opportunity of saying something about the development which has taken place. It has been very gratifying to hear from Members on all sides of the House the tributes which have been paid to the old fire brigades, as the hon. Member called them, notwithstanding the fact that the heavy attacks that we experienced a little time ago have not been upon us recently. I would remind the hon. Member that the old brigades are the same as the new brigades, the same men are in them, and I would also remind the House that when we think of the National Fire Service we must now think of it as we did before, as a body composed not only of those engaged whole-time in the business of fire-fighting, but as composed substantially of ordinary citizens engaging in a part-time duty after their normal day's work has been done. It would be a great pity it we were to lose those part-time volunteers, upon whom the efficiency and the effectiveness of the service depends, for without them we could not have the necessary man-power.
I would also remind the House, as one who has been occupied with the Civil Defence services in this Department since the beginning of the war, that at times it has been rather an uphill fight, and the House has recognised that fact when it has been mentioned before from this Box. At times the House has been rather grudging of the attention paid to the Civil Defence services and of the money spent upon them, and there have been many occasions when we in the Department would have welcomed support from the House in making progress in many directions. I do not say that to defend myself from what, I gather, was one of the complaints of the hon. Member, namely, that the National Fire Service is under my control. It is not. It is under the control of the Home Secretary, who has delegated to me a substantial measure of responsibility.

Sir R. Glyn: I had nothing personal to say. What I meant to suggest was that it should be under a whole-time Minister.

Mr. Mabane: I should like to point out that this very great change has been carried through in an extremely speedy manner. It is a change which would have taken a very long time in peace. Nevertheless, within six months of the introduction of the Bill we are able to debate in the House the development of this National Fire Service from its very initiation. It has not been an easy change, and I would remind the House that we have been making this change while we have been crossing the stream, or might have been crossing the stream. The House will realise that it has been welcome to us that while this change has been taking place we have been left in comparative quiet by the enemy. I was interested to hear one or two speakers say that in the past the country, and perhaps the House, has never really appreciated the consequences of a really serious attack by incendiary bombs upon this country. Indeed, as we look back we realise that criticisms were made of the service not because it was too small but, often, because it was too large. We learned our lessons when the incendiary bombs came, and we undertook this business of nationalisation and reorganisation.
I should like to say a word about the reorganisation. It should be remembered that the purpose of this nationalisation was to make a unit of the whole fire-fighting forces of the country. There were somewhere about 1,450 separate authorities responsible for fire brigades, and there was a loose unification of control, but it was more loose than unitary. Those 1,450 brigades have now been reduced to 37 fire forces, five of them in London, and those fire forces are now knit together in a hierarchy of control and command. There is the fire staff at the Home Office; there are in each of the 12 Civil Defence regions chief regional fire officers; under them there are fire force commanders; and so, down the scale, it is one chain of command from top to bottom. The officers who have had to take the higher ranks in the new National Fire Service have had to undertake responsibilities far greater than any fire chief ever had before. A divisional officer to-day is a man who has command of about 100 pumps and 1,000 men, and I think I am right in saying that in peace-times there were few, if any, brigades, outside the


London Fire Brigade, with a command of that character. When we come to the fire force commanders in the large fire force areas and the regional fire officers it should be realised that we have created a new level of responsibility in the Fire Service.
But while we have created these new responsibilities I do not not think the hon. Member for Abingdon was quite right in suggesting that we have centralised affairs. As I look at the Fire Service I am rather struck by the extent to which that responsibility and authority have been delegated from the Home Office to the chief regional fire officers commanding under the Regional Commissioners and the fire force commanders. I have been re-reading the Debate which took place when this Bill was introduced, and then the House was rather emphasising the necessity for centralising authority in this matter. We have endeavoured to centralise and to unify training in certain directions. The degree of training and efficiency up and down the country varied enormously, varied from one city to another and from one rural area to another, and it was clear that we should have to establish a uniform system of training. We have since established a National Fire College, and from that college are flowing out instructors and men who can unify the drill of the fire service throughout the country and, I am sure, make it more efficient.
Before I leave this matter of organisation I should like to deal with one other matter raised by the hon. Member for Abingdon and by other Members. The hon. Member seemed rather contemptuous of the rural brigades, speaking of men who hung about and seldom saw a fire. it must be remembered that now the rural brigade is just as much a part of the fire-fighting organisation of the nearest town as the brigade in that town. Going about the country I have been struck by the number of rural brigades which have had very considerable blitz experience. Some of them have in their stations little shields with the names of the places to which they have been called, which show that they are by no means without fire-fighting experience, and they have done remarkably good work. Now the whole of the fighting force in an area surrounding any target is just as much a part of the force available for that target as are the fire pumps nearest the target.
One hon. Member made a particular point about consultations with local authorities. He said it was essential that the fire service authorities should consult with the local authorities. We do that, and only in the last day or two have sent further instructions to secure that it is done. Then there has been criticism of the administrative machinery. It has been suggested that we have a large army of administrative officials who, perhaps, are not doing very useful service. I am fairly certain that in the fire service the proportion of the total force who are in the front line will compare very favourably with the proportion in any other service. There was a reference on a previous occasion to the "teeth and the tail" of a service. The proportion of teeth in the fire service is very high in relation to the tail. It must be remembered that we have had to set up a new administrative machine. Before the fire service was nationalised the administration was being conducted by 1,450 authorities, with little bits of things going on here and little bits of things going on there. We have had to co-ordinate and weld them into one administrative whole. Furthermore, there were some tasks which were not being done at all. At the fire force headquarters we have six officers—the chief clerk, the finance officer, the transport officer, the stores officer, the establishment officer and the catering officer. One lesson that we had to learn was that it was essential to provide men with proper food and drink when they were sent to distant fires. We are looking after all these things. Our administrative machine is by no means overlooking them.
Now I would like to turn to other matters which bulked largely in the Debate, relating to trade unionism and conditions of service. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon made the point that the Fire Service is not a proper sphere in which trade unions should operate. He has made the point a little late, because the matter was much in discussion during the Debates on the Bill, not merely on the Second Reading but during the Committee stage, when Amendments were moved not to secure that the Fire Service should be free of trade unionism but that members of the Fire Service should be entitled to join unions. A definite statement was made on that subject by the Minister at


that time. In general, matters connected with the Civil Defence Service, relating to such things as conditions of service, have been discussed for a long time with a consultative body representing the whole body of trade unions. So far as I know, no objection has been raised about the process of consultation; moreover, ready and easy consultation with the trade union has been of the greatest possible help.
I am sure that the Fire Brigades Union recognises its own position. It is a member of the general consultative body and desires to be a body easy of consultation. If any of the things were to happen that have been suggested, that is, if the union began to be a source of unrest and to create indiscipline, I am sure that the House of Commons would not stand it at all and that the position would have to be reviewed; but I am sure that that is not the position that the union desires to adopt. On the general subject of the conditions of service, it is important to remember that improvements are continually being made in them throughout the war. It is not as though we stood still. We have had to learn as we went along and collect our experience. The Department are entitled to a little credit on account of the continuous improvements that are being made.
I have now to deal with the five points of what is called the firemen's charter, and I will do so in some detail, because they were mentioned in some detail. The first point relates to rates of pay. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) objected to the principle, on which the Department stands, that the Fire Service is part of the general Civil Defence Service. That principle has been laid down ever since the war broke out, and I do not think my right hon. Friend would be inclined to depart from it or from the principle that any rate laid down for the general Civil Defence Service must apply to the National Fire Service. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 3. differentiation to be found in the rescue service, but the basic rate there is the same as in the National Fire Service. The exception is that in the rescue party is one man who is entitled to a higher rate of pay on account of skill. It is confusing the issue to suggest that there are many different rates of pay in the National Fire Service, as if that were the determined and deliberate policy of the Department.
What has happened? Before the Fire Service was nationalised, every local authority could pay its firemen, within limits, what it liked, and naturally there were different rates all over the country. One uniform rate was established when the Service was nationalised, the present rate of £3 10s. per week but, naturally, those who joined the National Fire Service carried with them their own conditions. I do not think the House would have tolerated any suggestion from the Home Office that the contracts of these men, made in peace-time between them as professional firemen and their respective local governments, should be broken. Anyone who joins the Fire Service now comes in on the uniform rate, which is the rate throughout the Civil Defence Services. The difficulties connected with rates of pay are desired to be met. Then there is the position of the part-time regular firemen, the kind of man we know so well, who works, say at his blacksmith's shop during the day, and may be called up for fires. He is paid a retaining fee, and so much per hour, when he goes to a fire. There is a difficult problem with which we are having to deal. It is true to say that there is one rate for the National Fire Service now. Many firemen who came over to the Service upon its formation brought with them different rates and it is not deemed proper to break the contracts which had already been made with those men.
The next point of difficulty relates to injury and sick pay. Let it be remembered that at the beginning of the war entitlement was only to three weeks' pay if a man was injured. The Department did not find it exactly easy to secure the advance which it did secure, namely, that if, not merely a fireman but any member of a Civil Defence Service, was injured as the result of enemy action, he should receive, whether full-time or part-time, payment at the rate of £3 10s. per week, for 13 weeks as a limit. I ought to make it plain that, if he were fit to return to duty, before the end of the period of 13 weeks; then he would go back to the Service. If he would never be fit for duty again, the period of payment stopped at eight weeks and then he went on pension, exactly the same as anybody else in similar circumstances It was suggested that such a man went on to the Poor Law. The House knows that these pensions are administered by the Assistance Board. It


is only in that respect that a fireman, injured and unable to return to duty, is in contact with the Assistance Board. I agree that the cost of extending the concession asked for in this case might not be large, and I can say that, while the matter has always been under consideration, it is at the present time under active consideration, in order that any grievances may be properly remedied.
Discipline is the fourth matter, one which is very difficult to deal with in a service like this. It would be intolerable if the only penalty possible to be imposed were dismissal There was a time when that was so, but now we have a discipline code which has been discussed with the trade union consultative body. Contrary to what was stated by the hon. Member for Peckham, there is an appeal. Certain penalties may be imposed, with an appeal to the Regional Commissioner, and certain other penalties may be imposed by an officer of rank not lower than divisional officer, in which case the appeal lies to the Fire Force commander. The final matter is concerned with hours. Hours of duty are not hours of work. The soldier, I take it, is on duty continuously; his duty is varied with periods of leave. The firemen and other members of the Civil Defence Services are required to be at their posts, although not working, but we do not know when a raid is coming, and they must be there to man the pumps when the time comes.
The fifth point is promotion. All that I can say is that I should like to know of any cases of unfairness or preference in regard to promotion. The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) said that promotion was secured by influence. I would like to deny that most strongly. All I can say is that the original appointments to all the senior posts went to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State personally. There has been a most careful examination of candidates by a central selection board on which some hon. Members of this House sat; a careful examination of the candidates at the regions by regional selection boards, and I am quite certain that so far as it is humanly possible to avoid it, no sort of influence or unfair preference has been brought to bear in this matter of making appointments in the National Fire Service.
I have done my best to answer most of the points raised by hon. Members in this Debate. I think the Department can claim that the progress made since 20th May, when this Bill was introduced, has been by no means negligible, and I think they can also claim that the improvement in efficiency is already substantial.

Dr. Russell Thomas: May I interrupt my hon. Friend a moment? Do I take it that in point of fact he is not prepared to make any concessions to the Firemen's Union? I believe that is the burden of his speech. Would he make it clear?

Mr. Mabane: I do not think I have said that at all. I made it perfectly plain that all these matters affecting the conditions of service and pay of the Civil Defence Services have been continuously under consideration since war broke out. There have been continuous improvements as we have gained experience, and exactly in the same way any representations of this kind will be given the most careful and full consideration. If the circumstances merit it, changes, will be made to improve the Service. I wanted, however, to look at this nationalised Fire Service rather from another angle in conclusion. That is, Will it be more effective in putting out fires? That is the final test. Unless that is the case, the Home Secretary and the Department will have to face a charge, but I think we can say that already the improvement resulting from the establishment of a chain of command, enabling officers to mobilise their pumps with a great deal more ease and to move their forces from one area to another a great deal more effectively, and the improvement as a result of the standardisation of the drill and as a result of instructors coming from the Fire College, have enabled every officer to know what he ought to do if enemy action falls upon us. In those and in many other ways there is already evidence that the nationalised Fire Service is likely to be far more effective in dealing with the kind of fire that the country had to suffer during the period of intense raiding than was the case before. We have not yet been put fully to the test; as the Prime Minister reminded us, it is always difficult to prophesy, but all I can say is that the efforts of those who are now in command, whether on the Fire Staff, as chief regional fire officers, as fire force commanders, or as officers lower


down the scale, together with their enthusiasm, will create a service far more likely to do that which the House desired the Home Secretary to do when it passed the Second Reading of this Bill on 20th May last.

Mr. George Griffiths: My hon. Friend stated that the fireman who has been working for a local authority and receiving £5 a week will still retain his £5, while another man, doing the same job during the same number of hours, will only get £3 10s., although he will be working alongside the other man all the time. Is that going to create unanimity and a willingness on the part of the lower-paid man to put his best into it? I think you are wrong there.

Mr. Mabane: The hon. Member will realise that there are other considerations to bear in mind. There are the pay of the Fighting Services and the pay of the general Civil Defence Services to bear in mind, and it was never contemplated that the rates established in the Civil Defence Services should approximate, for instance, to the highest rates paid to policemen, nor that the Auxiliary Fire Services should approximate to the rates paid to regular firemen who, before the war, had undertaken this duty of fire fighting as a professional career.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is the Department satisfied with the intake of conscripted firemen provided by the Minister of Labour and National Service? Are they coming in sufficiently fast every month, and being trained? My impression, from the little I have seen of the Fire Service, is that it is top-heavy—the staffs are too large, and the men are not being trained as quickly as they ought to be.

Mr. Mabane: We have to take what we can get. There is a great demand for man-power, and we do our best to press for our allocation. As far as training goes, we are establishing training camps in every region for the recruits, and, with regard to the top-heavy quality to which the hon. Member was concerned, perhaps he was here when I said that I am quite certain that the proportion of those in the Fire Service who are in the front line would bear very favourable comparison with any other of the Services.

Orders of the Day — RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS.

Mr. R. J. Russell: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
But hope that steps may be taken to secure that greater recognition should be given to the essential value of religious education in our schools in the building up of national character.
I think I can say with the approval of the House that there is throughout the House a supreme desire to avoid all appearance of disunity in order to bring to a successful conclusion the great task upon which we are engaged. For this reason it may be that many older Members of the House experienced feelings of some misgiving when they saw on the Order Paper a notice dealing with religious education. There would come to them, I have no doubt, some sense of
old, forgotten, far off things, and battles long ago,
when the Churches, led into a false position, showed a sense of tragic disunion which left within the nation damage from which it and the world have suffered ever since. In the past 40 years we have passed through times of searching trouble such as has rarely, if ever, been experienced. This has changed our outlook, matured our judgment and, I believe, mellowed our character and made us more willing to take wider views and wiser actions. The desire for unity to-day is great; the spirit of unity is ever-increasing, and it is because of that spirit of unity which pervades the whole nation than an opportunity has arisen in which a contentious question of the past can become a non-contentious one of the present.
We talk freely to-day of reconstruction after the war. By that we mostly mean reconstruction in material things, economics, finance, land, streets, houses, and labour for daily bread. I submit that none of these can be successfully fulfilled and none of them can compare in importance with the creation of a new spirit in the character of our people. Something, we all admit, has gone wrong. It is the business of this House to ask what, and how. I do not propose to enter on that question of what is wrong morally, socially, and in other ways, in the world which has led the world into such an impasse as that in which we find ourselves to-day. I think all will agree that in


this matter the first field to be occupied is that of infancy, and that in dealing with the child we must have directness and simplicity. I think that, if we were to ask the question of those who have been our greatest and best in national and world affairs, they would say that the real foundation of their greatness was laid in those early years at the time when they learned to say at their mother's knees, and repeat, that old prayer:
Look upon a little child. Pity my simplicity.
Let me make one or two observations which may help to disarm, if necessary, any feelings of misapprehension. This is not an attack on any class of school. We all should recognise that the great work which many teachers and schools have done is beyond praise, and that in times of difficulty teachers and schools have carried on and, I think, have done wonderfully, but the powers of evolution still operate, and what has been good we desire to make better, and there are evidences that all is not well. The experiences which have come into our homes as a result of evacuation, for example, have awakened the consciousness of multitudes of people of this country as to what has happened and what may be happening at the present time in child life. After all, our experience of national education is very brief, for what is 100 years in the life of man? We have to gain by experience, and if we would reconstruct the world, we must take such action as will, in the words of that great educationist, Matthew Arnold, produce
That common wave of thought and joy lifting mankind again.
There is no need to cause disunion among other religions when we say that we desire Christian teaching in our schools. In our search for a common basis on which to build a finer character and a better citizen all may help. Not long ago I received a letter which said, criticising a statement which some of us had made, that we had assumed that truth and justice and freedom were peculiar to the Christian philosophy of life. We never said so. They went on to say that those ideals were shared by many non-Christians. We agree, but surely that helps our position. That the same basis is found in other religions simply widens our point of view and makes co-operation much more possible. That is not all. Not everyone is equipped with the talent or the training

for imparting religious knowledge. Some masters are specialists in geography, some in science, some in mathematics, some in handicraft. On occasion the master in geography may give a lesson in science, but you would not employ him always. On every staff there should be one with the talent and training for special work, and this work is at least as important in the curriculum as any other.
We have been led astray by a gate marked "Tests for Teachers." That was the outcome of a narrow sectarianism which had the aim of training little Baptists or little Anglicans instead of little citizens and little Christians. A new day must envisage a new method by which all that shall make fine character in the life of a child shall be moulded into the life of the child, leaving to the loyalty of those who believe in the value of their own creeds the task of providing the enrichment of ornament which will adorn the character of the man. We must have teachers who are qualified for religious work and in the practical working of the school. There is no difficulty in this. It will need some modification in relation to training college work, so that a teacher wishing to specialise in this work may do so, even as to-day he may specialise in other subjects. That can be done. We must follow the lines of development already begun. Throughout the country parties and philosophers have been getting together and finding the greatest common measure of agreement, with the result that many syllabuses have been issued by the universities and the local education authorities, giving material which all can use as the medium by which training can be conveyed to the child mind. But the thing we desire is not to be attained by mere syllabus and regulations. It is too great to be confined in definitions, great as these are. It requires at least two things—an attitude of mind, a way af approach, a consciousness of something more real than apparent reality; and this is the greatest possession of childhood. Heaven lies about us, we are told, in our infancy, and it is well that the child should learn the language ere it drifts apart. The very atmosphere of the school must be allied with that spirit which puts materialism into its right relation with life and takes the shoes of custom from the feet as they approach the presence of eternal truth.
In every school, a most important place


must be given to school assembly and a brief and simple act of united worship. It is the greatest condemnation of many school buildings which still exist that there is no accommodation to make this possible. That must be changed. It is essential also that the relation of religion to life should be clearly understood, that, when all is said, worship is not everything Religious exercises have no meaning unless they make it possible to bear the burden of life and to apply principles which will make that life good. It reflects the problems of the world to-day, when we struggle because of the falsehood of Nazism. Our teaching must establish truth in the individual and national life. We are at war because of the tyranny of a people gone mad. Our teaching must make a love of freedom supreme. The world is aghast to-day at injustice which is cruel beyond words. Our religious teaching must make injustice impossible in the life of man. We believe that we can do this best by following Him who said—
I am the Truth, and ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.
But we must do it definitely, fearlessly, continuously, if we are to save the world. In my judgment, the purpose of all education, so far as this House is concerned, is to train the individual so that his voice shall be complete and happy in all its relationships, and shall eliminate from the national life all that defaces or destroys. In another great King's speech these words were used:
Go out into the darkness, and put your hand into the hand of God.
To teach the child how to do that is the work of religious education in our schools. We who through many years have been battered with the storms of life, and, through those storms, have learned the way of peace, desire that the children of a new age, facing storms perhaps greater than we have known and facing problems greater than we have understood, shall find that way, and shall so explore it that through them the whole nation and the whole world may abide in peace.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan (Bolton): I beg to second the Amendment.
I realise that the first obligation which rests upon any hon. Member who raises this issue in the House is to prove that

there is an appreciable demand from the general public for a reform of this nature at this moment. I believe that, although it may not be very widely expressed, there is a widely held preference that religion should be the basic factor in the moral instruction of our youth. It is very significant that, although local education authorities have it in their power to withhold religious instruction in their schools, I believe I am right in saying that not one local education authority has availed itself of this undoubted right. As local education authorities are popularly elected bodies, it is a legitimate assumption that they reflect the views of the majority of the electorate. Although we have been very solicitous, and I think quite rightly, to ensure that the consciences of those opposed to religious instruction in schools are not outraged, we have not been equally careful to provide adequately for those whose consciences favour religious instruction in schools, and who, on the evidence I have adduced, are probably in a large majority.
The approach to this subject, I am painfully aware, is beset with pitfalls and difficulties, but the recently developed collaboration between the various religious denominations, to which the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. R. J. Russell) has referred, has smoothed the path and removed one of the most formidable obstacles. This obstacle is intolerance, an obstacle which was set in the way by those whose sectarianism rendered them incapable of appreciating that brotherly love is one of the first Christian virtues. It is a significant historical circumstance that the deterioration of the status of religious instruction in the school curriculum is not, as casual observers might imagine, immediately due to the growth of what we call rationalism, or to the progress of science, or to the substitution of a mechanical or material conception of human existence for the spiritual. It is the direct outcome of regrettable rivalries and internecine strife between those who hold the most extreme religious views, and whose incompatibility was so conclusive that what they had been striving for was lost in the general confusion of their religious antipathies. In my criticism of the present method of religious instruction in State-aided schools, I am in no way disparaging the teachers, but I blame the system under which no teacher, in however high a category he places religious


instruction, can possibly do himself justice.
We can all of us, no doubt, adduce individual instances of school teachers who do not subscribe to any religious creed and have no desire whatever to qualify for such instruction, and who may be hostile to religion, but who are called upon to impart such instruction to our youth. I, for one, will certainly not argue from the particular to the general in that connection. Every report that I have ever read on this subject testifies to the fact that within the exiguous limits laid down by regulations, and as far as purely undenominational instruction admits, religious instruction in the primary schools is often most conscientious and with the full appreciation of its basic significance and value. I render to the teachers the fullest mead of praise for their ability and good intention in this matter and it is on that account that I want to have full play for their ability and good intention. One consideration which actuates me in supporting this Amendment is that I believe that the time is both right and appropriate for a thorough overhaul of our religious education in schools, which, in my view, is little short of derelict.
The most peculiar contrasting feature of this war is that it is being fought by ourselves on an exclusively moral issue. With the possible exception of the War of the Crusades—and I am told that modern historians now are beginning to doubt whether the Crusades were Crusades and nothing else—I suppose there never was a war which was fought so exclusive of material considerations as the one in which we are now involved. We are fighting a pagan enemy that is convinced that it is for the benefit of the State that its children should receive nothing but a secular education, and a military and a physical education at that. Although I cannot deny that there have been grave indications that England has been perhaps drifting rather in that direction, I believe the great mass of our people hold the view, although they do not perhaps give effect to it, that spiritual values in education are inestimable. This attitude of mind seems to be characteristic of democracies and antipathetic to dictatorships.
The British Government and the United States, two of the greatest democracies in the world, illustrate well enough that

thesis. Now we have the curious anomaly of the United States of America and the British Empire, with religion undoubtedly inscribed upon their banners, under the leadership of President Roosevelt, who, I believe, is an intensely religious man, and our own Prime Minister, who is not slow to proclaim that the spiritual weapon is the most effective in our armoury to fight this new paganism, ranging themselves on the side of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which in its inception had adopted a purely materialistic conception of human existence. If there was one feature in the original Soviet ideology which alienated Englishmen of all parties more than any other, it was the persecution and suppression of religious life in Russia during the actual processes of revolution. I remember Mr. George Lansbury long years ago telling me that when he was accorded an interview with Lenin in the Kremlin he told the founder of the new Russian State that he would be unable to support his views so long as religious persecution and intolerance were a declared policy of the Soviet Union, but at that time his appeal fell upon deaf ears.
What then is the answer to the question: How are we going to get over the particular difficulty which presented itself to Mr. Lansbury and many others of all parties? I think that the answer is that Russia is going to solve the problem for us. I have been only once to Russia, and that was before the Revolution. Anyone who shared that experience with me will corroborate me when I say that it was quite evident that Russia was an intensely religious country. Surely, the very fact that it required such drastic methods to drive religion below the surface, let alone eradicate it, was proof positive that religion was inherent in that race. If religious toleration once again obtains in Russia—and the Russian authorities take very good care to assure us that it will—I believe that religion will renew its influence in that country, although upon more enlightened lines. There will be less difficulty in identifying our war aims, both present and future, with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
There is one other preliminary point that I would make before I recapitulate the reforms to which, in putting our names to this Amendment, we would like the Government to give effect. While wishing well to any movement supported by pri-


vate individuals without official sanction which has for its object the moral and spiritual health and welfare of the nation, I have been careful not to identify myself with any such movement. I have always felt that, apart from occasionally achieving some sporadic success, these movements do not get down to fundamentals. Long years ago I conceived the view, to which I have ever since adhered, that it was only by making religion the groundwork of moral instruction in our schools, under the aegis of the State, that we could recapture part of that spiritual heritage of ours that we seem to have so lightly squandered. I was convinced that the Cowper-Temple Clause and the Education Act which embodied it contained within itself the seeds of failure, but so long as denominational controversy persisted I had to possess my soul in patience. I believe the time has arrived when that failure can be retrieved by the good will of those who set religion above these disputes which a more enlightened age considers of little consequence.
If I am asked whether I do not consider the home rather than the school the appropriate medium through which to impart religious instruction, I reply that a very great number of our homes have neither the time nor the space nor the requisite knowledge for the purpose. I would back that statement with a curious piece of evidence disclosed recently in a report on the evacuation of London school children. From figures obtained from a large number of schools, it is estimated that about 80 per cent. of London's school children now in the reception areas attend church or Sunday school regularly—in some cases as many as 90 or 100 per cent. Of these about 30 per cent., when in London, never attend any place of worship, but—and this is the point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House—where the children have been evacuated with their parents they rarely attend church or Sunday school. The truth is that we have reached a point in time when we have parents who in their youth were instructed under our present system, and who, as a consequence, are quite unequipped to impart religious instruction to their children. Under a more adequate system we may be able to impart religious instruction to children so that when they, in their turn, become parents they will be able to hand on the torch, but that time

is not yet. Religion should be made one of the regular subjects to be taken in the examination for the teachers' certificate, counting towards the award instead of the additional optional subject which places it in a lower category than other subjects offered.
I am on the Education Committee of the London County Council, and I am glad to say that the Council's training colleges are taking an ever-increasing interest in this matter. In this connection there is one problem which deserves our most sympathetic consideration. It is recognition of the fact that there is a certain number of teachers who do not subscribe to any religious creed and are quite unwilling to qualify as teachers in this subject. I am told that they entertain misgivings that if this instruction is given the status that so many of us would like it to have in the school curriculum, their promotion to the higher grades of the profession will be prejudiced. I can only suggest that in this enlightened age they would have little to fear in this respect. I think tolerance should be of two kinds —those whose views are in favour of religious instruction and those who are against. Although this is not a completely convincing argument, I would remind the House that at one of our public schools the Provost and the Headmaster are laymen, a contingency which would have been unthinkable when I was at that school. I do not think that either of these members of the scholastic hierarchy is an agnostic. At any rate, it never struck me that Lord Hugh Cecil, when he was in this House, showed any tendency that way, but I cite this case as an example of how far religious tolerance has progressed.
There should be an agreed reformed syllabus, and although I do not pretend to be an authority on syllabuses, and prefer to leave consideration of this matter to those who are, I would like to say that for a very good reason I do not think the recent syllabus of the London County Council, which is that most commonly used in London, can be very adequate. It is a small document of two or three pages, and I do not imagine that it can be much guide to anyone. I arrive at this conclusion because for a long period of years I have been associated with a great number of school-leavers—those who have been educated in council schools. It has been my experience that hardly any


of them know anything about religion at all or attach themselves to any kind of church or religious instruction. Syllabuses which produce so little result as that must surely be almost worthless. There are other syllabuses such as that issued by the Surrey County Council, which are calculated to serve the purpose. But the President of the Board knows the difficulty which confronted us in preparing an agreed syllabus when we had to be fearful not to tread on denominational toes and careful that all dogma and theology, so far as possible, should be removed, leaving us with most substantial dregs which are of no nutritive value to our children. There is a third good case to be made out for religious teaching. In any re-organisation the conscience clause must, of course, be retained. Fourthly, there is a very good case to be made out for religious teaching to be given at any time during the school day. Fifthly, I believe there is demand for inspectors of religious instruction, although I have heard objections to this in the teaching profession.
My observations apply in the main to the primary schools, but the efficient organisation of religious instruction in secondary schools is of infinitely greater importance. Our ideas on religion and on our capacity to profit by it must be rudimentary for children up to the age of 14, who do not require such expert tuition as that given to older youths who have reached a more impressionable age, when the critical faculties are more highly developed and many of whom require some spiritual guidance in the dangerous period of adolescence. One of the many evils attendant upon so low a school-leaving age as 14 or 15 is that an elementary school boy, just at the period of his life when he needs such instruction most, goes out into the world and cuts himself completely adrift from all spiritual influences, institutional or otherwise.
The expression, "secondary schools," in most recent reports on education, includes every kind of post-primary educational establishment. Some of the so-called public schools are residential, and as such have an advantage in the matter of religious instruction over those which are not. Obviously, the contact which a master in a residential school can get with his pupils out of school hours is a

great advantage. Most of our public schools have a great religious tradition which boys and masters alike are solicitous to retain. They have also chapels, many of them of such exquisite beauty that the building itself and the services conducted therein are an inspirational influence. But of course, the majority of secondary schools have not these advantages. I have not the time to elaborate the matter of religious instruction in secondary schools, a matter which I regard as of supreme importance, but I would ask the leave of the House to make a brief reference to the so-called Spens Report, the report of the Consultative Committee on Secondary Education. There is in it an admirable chapter with the rather old-fashioned title of "Scripture," which is well worth the careful attention of the House. I quote the opening sentence:
We believe that there is a wide and genuine recognition of the value and importance of religious instruction and that the time is favourable for a fresh consideration of the place it should occupy in the education of boys and girls of secondary-school age.
But the report reveals that, although the number of secondary schools making no provision for religious instruction is small, there is a considerable number in which the subject is not included in the timetable of the higher forms. Surely, this is deplorable. Surely, it is of supreme importance that throughout the secondary school age, when the critical faculty, and indeed, all the faculties, are developing, religious instruction by the most expert teachers and on the best approved lines should be given.
I have already occupied more than my fair share of the time of the House, and I should like to conclude with this final observation. In an official capacity it has been my duty to examine innumerable case-histories of young delinquents between the ages of 16 and 25. In addition to this, I share an experience with many other hon. Members doubtless of sitting on the bench of a juvenile court. These two experiences give me the excuse to say that, in examining these case-histories and learning the histories of those who appear before the juvenile court, I am appalled at the complete absence of spiritual background which characterises the histories of these young men who break the law. I will refrain from ending on a note of peroration. One


can find perorations in most of the speeches delivered on this subject by our leading statesmen, from the famous speech delivered at the Sheldonian Theatre by Disraeli many years ago to the recent utterances of the Prime Minister. The subject no doubt lends itself to peroration, but we want something more than lip-service now. I prefer that we should present our case in a calm and dispassionate manner, trusting that the Government will examine it from a common-sense point of view and effect such reforms that we shall no longer come within the range of that reproach of hypocrisy levelled at us by those States we have criticised as being lacking in a sense of spiritual values.

Mr. Cove: I should like, if I may, to congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment on making two uncontroversial speeches about what is in reality a very controversial subject. They have made uncontroversial speeches because they have not touched the realities of the situation. They have not faced the difficulties which the Government would have to face if they met this position. It is not for me to-day to outline any constructive proposals, and I would not enter into that realm. I can be as courageous and as careful about this matter as the Mover and Seconder, because the moment I enter into constructive proposals controversy begins. I repeat, most respectfully, that neither the Seconder or the Mover faced the real problems which are involved in this question. But I should like to say this, and I say it most solemnly, that the movement behind the Mover and Seconder is creating perturbation in the minds of a number of people. They are not quite clear as to what they really want or mean.
As a matter of fact I have had private letters from prominent leaders in the Nonconformist movement who are not only disturbed, but—and I think I can frankly use the expression—suspicious of what certain religious bodies really desire. For instance, I received a letter from a prominent leader of the Free Church Council which asked this question:
Can you tell me, Mr. Cove, whether the people who are leading this movement are in favour of a single system of education in this country? Are they really in favour of the abolition of the dual system of education; or are they out to cash in and get, from their

point of view, during this time of trial and difficulty some denominational advantages?
The speeches which we have heard to-day are no answer to that question, because the realities and difficulties of the situation have been avoided. But I am glad to note that neither the Mover nor the Seconder subscribed to the old charge that council schools are godless. I am glad to note it was freely admitted that council schools have, so far as their limitations, particularly in buildings, are concerned, a basis of Christian teaching.
The Seconder referred to delinquency. I did not know that this. Debate was to take place until a short time ago, and if I had had the time, I would have brought with me two or three surveys by Sir Percival Sharp which were published in the official organ of the local education authorities. I am not saying this in criticism of any denomination, but it was shown that the highest number of juvenile delinquents were attached to the Roman Catholic Church and the second highest to the Church of England. The lowest number of juvenile delinquents are those who have passed through what have hitherto been called the Godless county schools. That does not amount to a reflection on the Christian teaching in the Catholic or Church schools. It meant that there were other factors involved as far as the creation of juvenile delinquency is concerned. The Roman Catholic children were taught in these schools in areas of slumdom and poverty and, if the problem is to be tackled, it must not only be tackled from the point of view of religious teaching. It is a big, broad social problem and it cannot be tackled merely by saying that you must have more emphasis on the Christian teaching in the schools. Instead of creating unity and agreement on this matter by forcing this issue during the period of the war you will create disunity, disagreement and violent opposition.
I know it has been felt that the embers of denominational strife have died down and that there is now a disposition to agree. I think I can say without boasting that I was one of the factors in the agreement over the 1936 Act. I made a rather helpful contribution—I will not put it any higher than that—to the settlement. I am not disposed to make interim settlements during the period of the war which may be to the advantage of any particu-


lar Church or any denomination, particularly as there is no accusation on the Floor of the House that Christian teaching has not been effectively done throughout the length and breadth of the land. There is not a single council school which does not give particular attention to Christian teaching. The council schools are positive agents for Christianity. I believe we can make constructive proposals at the proper time. I believe there can be a settlement of the matter under the right conditions, but there can be no settlement during the period of the war and apart from the reconstruction and advance of the whole educational system. If there is to be a settlement it must be a broad national settlement associated with an advance in the educational service of the country. I hope my hon. Friends will agree to that. I plead with my right hon. Friend in charge of reconstruction not to wait until the war is over in order to get a reconstruction of the educational system. Let us get that Education Act now while the war is on. Let us get the educational proposals on the Floor of the House. Let us have a Butler Act or a Greenwood Act or an Ede Act, just as we had a Fisher Act. I do not mind all three of the Ministers being associated with it. Let us have a positive statutory contribution. Then, with that advance in education, I am certain that neither the teachers, the local education authorities, nor the free churches will stand in the way of a settlement.
I have studied this problem for years, and I have come to the conclusion that if proposals to meet the difficulties and inefficiencies of the dual system are made in conjunction—there can be no other way—with a great step forward educationally, agreement can be found. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends on the other side will not merely press for an advantage here and an advantage there and so create suspicion that they are out for denominational advantages—. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may dissent, but I am in close association with this problem and I tell them again that there are uneasiness and suspicion. I do not want that uneasiness and suspicion. I repeat that no one did more than I did to get the 1936 settlement through, and I am prepared to take the same line again, but I warn my hon. Friends opposite that if that attitude is not associated with a

great advance in education and with a realisation of the difficulties of the dual system, the Government will do more harm than good. I hope that the Government will not to-day make any pronouncement associated with the promise of legislation, and that they will not go out of their way to appease, but that they will stand solidly by their position and then invite us to get a great big Education Act on the Statute Book as quickly as may be.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), in spite of his criticism, ended his speech on a positive note, with the hope in the future for a great educational Measure which will mark a great advance for the community and an opportunity for a settlement of difficulties which lie, I believe, already largely in the past. I do not think that the suspicions of which he spoke are in any way well-grounded, at any rate so far as any Members who are associated with this Amendment are concerned. There is no idea of denominational privilege or advantage. There is the thought that at this time we might realise more fully the great things we have in common, as we have done during this war, and that we might emphasise the great spiritual basis of our national life at a time when so much of Europe is dominated by a philosophy which subordinates everything to the idol of the State, that makes the State itself supreme over morality and over the lives of all its citizens, refusing to recognise any obligations to any law higher than the law which it lays down itself. At this time of crisis we are standing together, surely, for a nobler ideal, the ideal which a thousand years of Christian training has implanted in the hearts of our people, the ideal that the State does not exist for itself but exists for the lives of its citizens and is itself subject to those great moral and spiritual laws which alone can mould the lives of its citizens aright. As we recognise that, surely we can feel that we have great things in common, even though there be things on which we must differ. It is, therefore, right that at a moment of national crisis we should spare the time to consider the place of religious education in national life—the supreme place, if religious education be truly considered.
I believe that the very modest suggestions that have been made to the House represent practical proposals for a fuller development of religious opportunity for all our citizens. There is no thought of imposing religion upon unwilling minds by force. There is an old story of Doctor Keate saying on one occasion to his boys, "Boys, be pure in heart. If you are not pure in heart, I'll flog you." That represents a point of view which, I hope, will wholly disappear from our midst. We know that we cannot impose the best things in life by compulsion. The State cannot impose a religion worthy of the name upon the lives of its citizens, but it can give facilities for its development. It can give encouragement in the school life period as well as in the rest of life, and it is that for which we ask. It is surely of the greatest importance that nationally we should recognise the place of religion and spiritual values in education, and we can do that without division, I believe, if the subject be rightly approached. I am very glad that the false accusations which have been made about godless schools have been exposed as they have been to-day. I do not believe there is a Member of this House who is prepared to make those foolish charges. We can recognise that council schools and voluntary schools alike are in need of improvement and that they can all benefit by better methods, and in many cases by fuller facilities for religious teaching. In particular we know that at the heart of all the life of a school is the personality of the teacher.
The training of the teacher, therefore, is a matter to which the State needs to give its thought. It has been pointed out that at present a teacher who is working for his certificate may, if he chooses, have an additional option of taking a course in religious knowledge, but it has to be superadded to all the rest of his training. It cannot be taken as an optional subject along with the compulsory subjects. We ask that the Board should make the improvement which has already been indicated of turning the additional option into an optional subject, so as not to compel any teacher when undergoing his training to take training in religious instruction and knowledge if he does not wish to do so. The teacher could do it if he wished, and add to his qualifications in that way. If that change were made—

Viscountess Astor (Sutton, Plymouth Division): Does my hon. Friend mean that teachers should have a special course in religion?

Mr. Harvey: There are training colleges now where courses are available in Biblical history and the teaching of religion, but the subject need not be taken at all for the teachers' certificate. It is purely additional, a work of supererogation.

Viscountess Astor: A course of different religions?

Mr. Harvey: Knowledge of the Christian religion, most of us feel, is of supreme importance, but the course would not be complete unless it carried with it some knowledge of other great religions. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give very serious consideration to this suggestion. I hope also, although no decision may be possible at present, that the Department will not put aside the possibility of allowing inspectors, where educational authorities or school managers desire it, to give friendly help in the matter of religious instruction. At present they may go to secondary schools and give advice, but when they go to primary schools their eyes must be shut, so far as religious instruction is concerned. I do not want to see any hard, uniform control on the part of the State in this matter, but the value of the inspector is largely in the friendly help and counsel which he gives, and in the informal part of his work. I believe that informal help of this kind is of importance in the work of religious instruction in our schools.
I hope that some of the other suggestions that have been made will receive consideration, even though a definite answer may not be possible now. In regard to the syllabus, it is important to remember that it should not be a single national syllabus imposed from above, but should be worked out co-operatively by teachers and others interested in religious education in the different localities. We already have admirable examples in the Surrey syllabus, the Cambridgeshire syllabus and elsewhere. I hope that the Board will use its influence to see that that kind of work is extended. I am glad to see that they have taken a great step forward recently by making provision for a holiday course in religious knowledge and teaching for teachers, which is to be


purely voluntary. That is one of the ways in which the State can help and is helping. Above all, the outlook of the Board will help in this matter far more than will any mechanical Regulations. In the present President and in the Parliamentary Secretary I believe we have men with a deep sense of the spiritual values which are of supreme importance in our national life, and that we may look to them with confidence to guide us towards the great measure of educational reform which we need if the life of our country is to go on developing as it should.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): The Government welcome this Debate. I should like to express my thanks to those who have participated in it for the way in which they have approached the subject. We can at least be certain, that, during the last 100 years, this has been the least exciting Debate on religious instruction and that we have also had the smallest audience. When I recall sitting in the Gallery of the House 40 years ago watching the crowded benches, when this matter was discussed with very great heat, I realise that we have taken a great step forward.
I should like to express my thanks to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. R. J. Russell), who opened the Debate, for making it quite clear—and it must be made clear—to all concerned that this demand with which the Amendment is associated cannot be used as the ground for any extension of religious tests. After all we are in this war to see that people shall have the right to exercise their legitimate occupation without any test applied to them on the ground of opinions, and I was very grateful to him for making that point quite clear from the first. I cannot follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir E. Cadogan) into all the stages to which he took us, because I should hesitate to comment to-day on his remarks with regard to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I am not at all sure that it would greatly help the war effort if I expressed my opinion about the views he expressed.
I was rather sorry to hear him say that religious instruction in the schools was derelict and that some of the agreed syllabuses dealt with the unsubstantial dregs. After all, I am the chairman of the Committee which drafted the last

agreed syllabus, which has received some favourable comment this afternoon, and I am quite sure the members of my committee would be horrified to hear that the result of their labours was to present to the children in the schools the unsubstantial dregs of the subject.
I believe the great movement during the last 20 years has been away from the negative and towards the positive view of this matter. The two great clauses that govern our religious instruction in schools are the "conscience clause" and the "Cowper-Temple Clause," both of them largely negative in form—you may not teach religious instruction except at certain times, you may not teach any formulary, His Majesty's inspector may not inspect, etc.—a purely negative attitude. Now in the Act of 1936, during the proceedings on which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has reminded us, we had some Debate on this issue, we proceeded to the positive side by Clause 13, under which a child may be withdrawn from a school to be given denominational teaching outside the school premises. I think that the agreed syllabuses have very largely helped in getting this positive attitude adopted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon said he was going to be courageously careful. I think he started off by being courageous and ended up by being exceedingly daring, because his speech, I thought, improved greatly in quality as it proceeded. I do not think there will be very much difference between us with regard to the final words that he used. I am sure that we all welcome the contribution that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) because he did give to us a series of constructive suggestions in a temper which was exceedingly helpful to the House and to the course of the Debate.
Now as I have said the Education Act of 1870 laid down that the giving of religious instruction in the schools should be governed by the conscience Clause and the Cowper-Temple Clause. Both those are negative in form and the first contained certain regulations for the conduct of the school and those regulations have to be conspicuously exhibited in the elementary schools. The only way in which you can tell the best elementary school from a secondary school is that


the elementary school exhibits the conscience clause and the secondary school does not. The best-known of these regulations prohibits the authorities of the school from making it a condition of attending school that a child shall attend some Sunday school or be associated with a particular religious denomination. I have never heard of any proposal to modify that regulation. I assume it stands. The second statutory regulation lays down that the time or times during which any religious observance is practiced or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school shall be either at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and the end of such meeting. This is a matter that has been alluded to in the course of the Debate and is a matter to which, with the agreement of the House, I will return later. The next regulation lays it down that the school shall be at all times open to the inspection of His Majesty's inspectors, but that it shall be no part of the duties of such inspector to inquire into any instruction in religious subjects given at such schools or to examine any scholar therein in any religious subject or book. That has been alluded to this afternoon. I heard one Member refer to Matthew Arnold, the most distinguished man who ever acted as one of His Majesty's inspectors of schools. In spite of the praise that was given to him in this Debate I very much doubt if the bishops and other church men of his day would have regarded him as a competent person to inspect religious instruction.
I should be very reluctant myself to do anything that might lead to the imposition of a religious test on a member of the Civil Service. Once one made it a part of their duties to inspect religious instruction in the schools, I am certain it would be followed by a suggestion that there should be proof that the inspector was a willing and competent person to do it. The final Sub-section of the conscience Clause imposes on the local education authority the duty
…to report to the Board of Education any infraction of the provisions of this Section in any public elementary school within their area which may come to their knowledge and also forward to the Board any complaint which they may receive of any infraction of those provisions.
By Article 2 of the Code the Board have laid it down that they will very carefully

inquire into any report of infractions and will take such steps as are necessary.
The Regulations with which I have so far dealt apply to all public elementary schools. The Cowper-Temple Clause applies to provided schools, now called council schools. It decrees:
No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school.
Except for certain criticisms of the Clause by the hon. and gallant Member for Bolton I have not, in the course of this discussion, heard any suggestion that the Clause should be amended, and I believe that the passing over to the positive in handling religious instruction has made any alteration of that Clause now quite unnecessary. I believe that Clause 13 of the Education Act, 1936, which enables children to be withdrawn from a council school to be given denominational instruction off the school premises has to a very large extent reconciled the Church of England to the continuation of the Cowper-Temple Clause in the Council schools. Section 12 of the Education Act, 1936, has done away with one grievance in the single school areas, because it enables any parent who desires a child to have religious instruction in accordance with the provided school syllabus to have it given. If the managers are unwilling to give that instruction, the local education authority has the duty imposed upon it of giving the instruction. I think it has been very largely due to the altered atmosphere as a result of those two Clauses of the 1936 Act that we have been able to conduct recent discussions without some of the heat that formerly was generated on this subject. That, as briefly as I can put it, is the legislative framework within which Parliament has ordained that religious instruction shall be carried on.

Captain Strickland: With reference to the right of a parent to see that the child shall receive religious instruction, my hon. Friend will agree that during the war, when children are sent to school at 10 o'clock in the morning, the only subject cut out is religious instruction. The children are not able to get the religious instruction. Does not that give the child the idea that arithmetic and geometry are more important than religious instruction?

Mr. Ede: I would not agree that religious instruction is cut out. In many schools, in spite of the shortened hours, religious instruction continues to be given; I should very much regret to hear that it was excluded from the curriculum. It might be necessary—I will be quite frank —instead of having a lesson every morning in religious instruction, to have it only on three or four of the five mornings of the week. But it is the attitude of the Board of Education that continued instruction of this kind should not be prevented either by the teacher or by the authority.
Immediately 'after 1870, some school boards, who were then the local education authorities, declined to give any religious instruction, but at the present moment and for some years past every one of the 316 local education authorities in England and Wales has given religious education in the provided schools, subject, of course, to the provisions of the Cowper-Temple Clause. In the exercise of this discretion, local education authorities have differed widely. How many authorities have an official syllabus is not known. An officer of one of the societies interested in religious education told me that he had 120 syllabuses in his library. The process of formulation has varied not merely from place to place but also from time to time. The earlier syllabuses were compiled when the denominational controversy was acute and the negative policy of the Cowper-Temple Clause governed the task. The composition of the bodies drawing up the syllabuses has also varied widely. Some syllabuses have been drawn up by the authorities concerned, with the assistance of their own officers. The movement towards unity of effort in many parts of the country by the Church of England and the Free Churches has resulted in several syllabuses that are known as "agreed." The range of parties to the agreement has not always been the same, and it some places the primary aim of the work appears to have been forgotten. The document being compiled is a syllabus to be taught to children mostly under the age of 14, and unless its suitability for this purpose constantly occupies the minds of the compilers a satisfactory syllabus is hardly likely to result.
I had the task of being chairman of the last such body to make a report, which embodies what has since become the

Surrey Agreed Syllabus. That Religious Advisory Body, as it was called, consisted of members of the county education committee, representatives of the Anglican Dioceses of Guildford and Southwark, representatives of the Free Churches, a representative of the University of London, and representatives of the county teachers' association. The work of this body was spread over 50 months. In the course of that time many interesting discussions took place, in which erudite views on fine theological points were enunciated. Time and again we were recalled to reality by the teacher reminding us that he was expected to make the matter under discussion part of a lesson to a child of 12, or possibly fewer, years. The best agreed syllabuses —and there are several—have been drafted by such bodies, and I understand and sympathise with the feeling of teachers who have been called on to teach syllabuses in the compilation of which no part has been taken by those having a knowledge of the difficulties of the classroom teaching involved. A genuinely agreed syllabus brings an additional advantage, for, generally speaking, it is used not only in the provided schools but for the Bible instruction given in the Church of England schools of the area covered by the agreement.
The syllabus, whether it be an "agreed" syllabus or one formulated by the authority or, in default of either, as may be the case in some areas—drawn up by the teacher himself, has to be taught normally by the teaching staff of the school. Competent teaching of this subject is of the highest importance, and competence extends beyond mere technical skill. That would, I am sure, be rightly accepted by my colleagues in the teaching profession. Theological and ecclesiastical attachments are notoriously less close among the mass of the nation to-day than they were in Victorian days, but where the child is not withdrawn from religious instruction—and very few are— the parent still rightly expects that in the schools the Christian way of life shall be taught and practised with sincerity and reverence. From long and intimate experience I know that their high responsibility in this matter is recognised by the teachers in the schools and that failure to discharge it adequately would be regarded as a serious shortcoming.
Recently both the Archbishops' deputation and the memorial of Noble Lords and hon. Members have suggested that the preparation of the teacher for giving religious instruction would be more efficient if the subject received higher status in the teachers certificate examination. That point has been made in more than one speech this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is reviewing the whole of the arrangements for the training of teachers and considering what reforms can be made. In any such consideration of the whole subject, religious instruction cannot escape prominent attention. At the best, however, this process must take time, and even if alterations are made they will only affect future teachers. My right hon. Friend has decided that opportunities to improve the technical competency of the teaching shall not wait for the result of these investigations, nor be limited to prospective teachers. He has invited local education authorities to send teachers and others interested in the training of youth to a course in religious instruction which the Board will hold early in 1942. He has also encouraged local education authorities to establish refresher courses of their own at which assistance will be given to teachers in acquiring more knowledge of the matter and more skill in imparting the spirit of the local syllabus.
An alteration in the teachers certificate examination and the institution of the courses just mentioned involves no alterations of the law, but the opportunities for using the additional competency that may be expected to result will be limited by the prohibition which prevents any teacher, however competent, from giving religious instruction except during a very restricted period of the school day. The Act of 1870, under which we still work in this respect, was passed at a time when the effective school-leaving age was 10 years. To-day in our senior schools some pupils stay till 16, all till 14, and this House has enacted that the normal leaving age shall be 15. The disaster of pouring new wine into old bottles would overtake our efforts if we were to attempt for too long to apply this particular and artificial restriction to a system which has developed to the extent which the upper parts of elementary schools have in the last 70 years.
The spiritual experiences and questionings of a child of 16 are altogether different from those of a child of ten. Their needs are greater and their inquiries more profound. If religious instruction is to be of value to the intelligent senior pupil, the teacher must be able to deal reverently, sympathetically, courageously, and with a deep knowledge with the problems that perplex the child. All schools will not wish to handle this matter in the same way, but some large schools would now like to employ a specialist to teach the more difficult parts of the subject and assist less qualified members of the staff. Such an appointment would be difficult to justify while the present statutory limitations remain. When an amendment of the Education Acts is undertaken the removal of the existing restrictions in the light of modern conditions will have to be considered, but it must be expected that withdrawals under Section 13 of the Education Act of 1936 would continue to take place only at the beginning or the end of the school session.
The manner in which, and extent to which, the local education authority tests the teaching of religious instruction vary very widely. In some areas a rigid formal annual examination takes place. Some authorities employ the diocesan inspectors in the provided schools, where, to comply with the Cowper-Temple Clause, their inquiries must be limited to teaching in accordance with that Clause, Others employ a diocesan inspector or some other representative of the Established Church one year and a representative of the Free Churches the next year Others have dropped the idea of formal inspection and have arranged for advisory visits by competent and qualified persons who discuss with the teachers the problems both of matter and method confronting them in their work and suggest solutions.
Before leaving this part of the subject, it may be well to ask those who want formal and routine inspection what they desire to inspect. At an inspection can be tested the ability to repeat from memory certain selected passages of scripture, knowledge of the history of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and of the apostolic wanderings of St. Paul. Proficiency in these is not of necessity proof of a training that will find its effect in a Christian character. In no subject more


than this do we need to remember the warning uttered by Montaigne to teachers:
We toil only to stuff the memory and leave the conscience and the understanding void.
Here more than anywhere else in education mere knowledge is not wisdom. It is perhaps easier in days like these in which we live than in less strenuous days to understand another saying of Montaigne's, succinctly summarised thus:
The true educators were the Spartans, who despised literature, and cared only for character and action. At Athens they thought about words, at Sparta about things. At Athens boys learnt to speak well, at Sparta to do well. In the one system there was constant exercise of the tongue, in the other of the soul.
Religious instruction as the training of character, to which my hon. Friends have referred in the words they have put on the Paper, is not tested by the answers given by the glib children who shine on examination day. I was always first in the religious instruction examination.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman extolling the Spartan method of education?

Mr. Ede: That, again, is a very large subject, which I could deal with if I had time. Some of those who desire inspection urge us to raise religious instruction to the status of the other subjects. My fear is that in the schools where this instruction is given conscientiously and with enlightenment we may lower rather than raise the subject by such a treatment.
A corporate act of worship forms part of the daily life of most schools. Those which do not have it in the main are those in which the premises make it physically impossible. They will be found, in the majority of cases, not to be provided schools. The act of worship differs very widely in scope and value. In some schools it consists of a hymn and prayer; in others a form of service in which the children take an active and intelligent part is used. Most of these more elaborate services are so arranged as to secure appropriate changes from day to day to prevent formal repetition which too soon becomes meaningless.
My right hon. Friend, since his appointment to office, has taken an active and constructive interest in the whole range of this subject. On four points raised in

recent discussions legislation would be necessary to secure what is asked. They are, first, a statutory requirement that religious instruction should be given; secondly, a daily act of worship to be included in every school; thirdly, the removal of the limitation of the hours during which religious instruction may be given; and fourthly, the employment of His Majesty's inspector on the inspection of religious instruction. Soon after his appointment to office, my right hon. Friend received a deputation headed by the Archbishops of the Established Church and by Dr. Scott Lidgett and other Free Church ministers. Some people who were not present have expressed themselves with an old-time bitterness about the results of the gathering. I do not rely on my own impression only for thinking that the deliberations served a most useful purpose. Sir Robert Martin, the experienced chairman of the Leicestershire Education Committee, was present, and from the width and depth of his administrative knowledge spoke with clarity and conviction of the work now being done. He has since given over the wireless his account of what transpired. As his version owes nothing to prompting from or editing by the Board, I give it as accurately describing my right hon. Friend's answer to the deputation and the spirit in which it was uttered and received:
In the middle of August, a deputation, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, met the President of the Board of Education in order to bring these proposals formally to his notice. The members of the deputation—both Anglicans and Free Churchmen—were all experienced in educational work, and several of them spoke on different aspects of the subject. The President, in his reply, assured them that he was wholly sympathetic with their general object of ensuring that effective Christian teaching should be given in all schools, though he naturally was careful to make it clear that before he gave any formal answers to their specific suggestions he would have to consult the local education authorities and the teachers. At the end of the interview, the Archbishop, at the invitation of the President, offered up a prayer for guidance and right judgment for all who have to deal with this question. That was in truth a moment that will not soon be forgotten by those who were privileged to share it.
May I say that it has been in that spirit throughout that my right hon. Friend has approached this subject?
On the issues where an alteration in the law is required if effect is to be given to the representations made to us, I have endeavoured in my remarks to examine


them in the light of a lifetime's experience as a pupil, teacher, and administrator in the elementary school system. I hope my hon. Friends will feel that I have dealt with the points they have raised with sympathy and with as earnest a desire as theirs that this instruction as a builder of character may gain in efficiency. I believe that in practice some of their aims have already been substantially achieved within the permissive form of the existing law. May I, in conclusion, say that I hope my hon. Friends will feel that in this matter we do desire to take advantage of any real underlying unity that there is in the nation, but we hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) suggested, that this spirit will be prepared to tackle even greater difficulties and that, as a result of the feeling that now pervades so large a section of our community, we may be able to make a substantial advance that will considerably increase the opportunities now enjoyed by the children of this country.

Mr. R. J. Russell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question, "That the. Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Major Dugdale.]

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Ordered,
That a Select Committee, be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending 1his House.

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members.

Committee accordingly nominated of Sir Ernest Bennett, Sir Reginald Blair, Captain Sir William Brass. Mr. Douglas Cooke, Viscountess Davidson, Major Sir James Edmondson, Mr. Ernest Evans, Sir Henry Fildes, Mrs. Hardie, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Liddall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Muff, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Bracewell Smith and Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Major Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]